2026:CGHC:4189 Digitally signed by PRAKASH P K R U A M K A A R SH NAFR KUMAR Date:

2026.01.23 16:14:27 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 52 of 2018 Shyamlal Agrawal S/o Late Sh. Madanlal Agrawal Aged About 39 Years R/o Hotel Honey, Khamtarai, P. S. Khamtarai, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, ... Appellant/Complainant versus Anjay Shukla S/o Late Sh. Vijayshankar Shukla Aged About 56 Years R/o 31/250, Civil Lines, In Front of C. M. House, P. S. Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent/Accused For Appellant : Shri Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate appears through VC along with Shri Ashish Pandey, Advocate For Respondent : --

( HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL )

Order on Board

23/01/2026

1. This is acquittal appeal filed under section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C. by the complainant against the order dated 19.02.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, in an unregistered Complaint Case whereby the learned J.M.F.C. dismissed the complaint case for want of prosecution.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that appellant/complainant and one Pramod Tiwari were approached by the Respondent and in October 2013 with a proposal to become partner in his transportation business. Acting on this oral agreement, the appellant and Shri Tiwari invested in the business wherein the appellant contributed Rs. 20,00,000/- between October 2013 and April 2014. Despite repeated requests, the Respondent did not pay the appellant’s share of profit, citing financial difficulties. Subsequently, on 02.05.2014, the Respondent issued a cheque in favour of the appellant for Rs. 20,00,000/-, which was dishonoured for “funds insufficient”.

3. The appellant issued a statutory legal notice under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 read with Section 420 of the IPC. The appellant then filed a complaint before the competent Court. However, the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution on 19.02.2016 by the Trial Court. Hence, this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order passed by the Court below is illegal and unsustainable in law. He further submits that in matters under Section 138 of the NI Act, the courts may adjourned the case and absence of Advocate of the complainant is not deliberate or intentional. On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the complaint be restored for adjudication on merits.

5. In the matter of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Keshvanand reported in (1998) 1 SCC 687, Hon'ble the Apex Court held as under:-

“18. Reading the Section in its entirety would reveal that two constraints are imposed on the court for exercising the power under the Section. First is, if the court thinks that in a situation it is proper to adjourn the hearing then the Magistrate shall not acquit the accused. Second is, when the Magistrate considers that personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary on that day the Magistrate has the power to dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case. When the Court notices that the complainant is absent on a particular day the court must consider whether personal attendance of the complainant is essential on that day for progress of the case and also whether the situation does not justify the case being adjourned to another date due to any other reason. If the situation does not justify the case being adjourned the Court is free to dismiss the complaint and acquit the accused. But if the presence of the complainant on that day was quite unnecessary then resorting to the step of axing down the complaint may not be a proper exercise of the power envisaged in the section. The discretion must, therefore be exercised judicially and fairly without impairing the cause of administration of criminal justice.”

6. Again, in the matter of Mohd. Azeem Vs. A. Venkatesh & another reported in (2002) 7 SCC 726, Hon'ble the Apex Court held that in a proceeding under the Act, 1881, due to single default