2026:CGHC:16138 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 338 of 2005

1 - Dilip Kumar Singh S/o Late Ravipratap Singh, R/o Ambikapur, Kenabandh, District – Surguja, C.G.

... Appellant(s)

versus

1 - Smt. Usha Sanpariya w/o Purushottam Sanpariya, R/o Mahamaya Road, Ambikapur, District – Surguja, C.G.

... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

Order On Board

08.04.2026

1. Pursuant to the order dated 20.03.2026, the Registrar (J) has submitted its report. Since, the officer concerned has already been transferred, without proceeding any further in the matter relating to enquiry, it is closed.

2. Aslo, heard on merits of the case.

3. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the order dated 24.06.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Digitally signed Class, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) in Complaint Case No.

by KISHORE K K I U S M H A O R RE K D U ES M H A M R UKH DESHMUKHD

20 a 2 te :

.04.09 +0530 1763/2003 by which the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the NI Act, 1881”) has been dismissed as barred by limitation.

4. The brief facts, as reflected from the record, are that the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 420 of the IPC alleging that the accused had taken a loan of Rs. 3,49,000/- from him on 17.07.2002 for business purposes, and from the said amount the accused was running her medical business. He had given the loan amount on account of old acquaintance and friendly relations between them. At the time of availing the loan, the accused assured the complainant that the amount would be returned within one year or as and when demanded. After lapse of one year, on demand being made, the accused issued a cheque dated 27.10.2003 bearing No. 9784013 in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque in his account bearing No. 159 maintained at the State Bank of Indore, Ambikapur Branch. However, on 18.11.2003, the cheque was returned unpaid with an endorsement that the payment had been stopped by the drawer. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the accused, who assured him that the amount would be paid in cash within a week. On 27.11.2003, when the complainant again approached the accused, she avoided payment on one pretext or the other. Looking to the conduct of the accused, the complainant realized that she was not willing to pay the amount. Therefore, the complainant sent a statutory notice through his advocate on 04.12.2003, which was returned on 17.12.2003 with the endorsement that the accused had refused to receive the envelope. Subsequently, on 21.12.2003, the husband of the accused assured the complainant that the amount would be paid within 4–5 days and requested him not to initiate legal proceedings. However, despite lapse of the said period, the amount was not paid which compelled the complainant to file the present complaint case on

29.12.2003.

5. The complainant was examined on 29.12.2003, and his evidence was closed. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 30.12.2003, and notice was issued to the accused. On 31.01.2004, the notice was received unserved, consequently, fresh notice was issued. The case was again taken up on 20.02.2004 and 21.02.2004, on which dates notices were repeatedly issued to the accused, despite this, she failed to appear before the Court. Looking to the non-appearance of the accused, a bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- was issued against her on 22.03.2004 to secure her presence. On 05.04.2004, as the accused again failed to appear, again bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- was issued. Despite the same, the accused did not appear on 27.04.2004, and accordingly, a warrant of arrest was issued against her and, on 29.04.2004, the accused was produced before the Court. Thereafter, the matter was a