2025:CGHC:1545 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 682 of 2024 • Naleen Kumar Kothari S/o Umedchand Kothari Aged About 45 Years R/o Kamthi Line, Infront Of State Bank Of India, Post, Tahsil, P.S. And District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

... Appellant versus • Smt. Sangeeta Khandelwal W/o Ashok Khandelwal Aged About 50 Years Proprietor- Gayatri Construction, R/o Khandelwal Complex, Kamthi Line, Post, Tahsil, P.S. And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Advocate For Respondent : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

Order on Board

09.01.2025

1. The appellant has filed the present acquittal appeal under Section

378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as the Complaint Case No. 3462/2017 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) vide order dated 14.03.2023.

2. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the complainant Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH YADAV YADAV Date:

2025.02.12 +0530 has filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 alleging that the accused has given a cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 21.02.2017 for discharge of his liability. The complainant has deposited the same in Dena Bank, Branch Rajnandgaon which was dishonored on the count of “insufficient fund” on 06.03.2017 and the same was communicated to the complainant. The complainant has given notice to the accused, which has neither been replied nor amount has been given to the complainant, which has compelled the appellant to file a complaint case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the accused.

3. The complainant to substantiate his case has examined himself as PW-1 and also exhibited documents: Cheque No. 051712 dated 21.02.2017 (Exhibit P-1), Cheque Deposit slip of Dena Bank dated 01.03.2017 (Exhibit P-2), Cheque Return Memo of Dena Bank (Exhibit P-3), Copy of the Notice sent to the accused (Exhibit P-4), Postal Receipt of the Notice (Exhibit P-5), Acknowledgment (Exhibit P-6), Promissory Note dated 01.02.2017 issued by the accused (Exhibit P-7) and Promissory Note dated 02.02.2017 issued by the accused (Exhibit P-8). The complainant in his examination by way of affidavit as required under Section 145 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has reiterated the same stand taken in the complaint. The witness was cross-examined wherein he has admitted that on 01.01.2017 the accused has executed promissory note of Rs. 50,000/-. He has also admitted that he has not produced any document to establish that the accused has taken Rs. 1 Lakhs from him. He has also admitted that when he has given amount in cash to the accused no other person was present. He has also admitted that he cannot recollect the date when he has given money to the accused. He has also admitted that in the promissory note there was no signature of the complainant. When he was asked whether is there any requirement of law in the money transaction document signature of both the parties are required, the witness has stated that it is not necessary.

He has also admitted that the promissory note was written to Gayatri Construction, Kaamthi Line Rajnandgaon and the said Construction Company is not controlled by the accused .

4. The accused has not examined the defense statement, but recorded statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he has denied the allegation levelled against him and the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon vide impugned judgment dated 14.03.2023 (Annexure A-1) has dismissed the complaint by recording its finding that the complainant has not arrayed the accused Gayatri Construction as party to the case and no evidence has been brought on record that the accused Sangeeta Khandelwal was proprietor or director of the company and accordingly, it has dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved with the order of acquittal, the present acquitt