2026:CGHC:10437 Digitally signed by SAGRIKA SAGRIKA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date:

2026.04.04

13:18:53 +0530 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 459 of 2025

1 - Shubham Agrawal S/o Mohan Lal Agrawal Aged About 32 Years R/o Surbhi Travels, Kalibadi Chowk, P.S. City Kotwali, Raipur, Tehsil And District-

Raipur (C.G.)

... appellant (s)

versus

1 - Ramkumar Singh S/o Late Jagat Pal Singh Aged About 60 Years R/o Art And Commerce College, Sector-4, Jagriti Nagar, Devendra Nagar, P.S.

Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For appellant (s) : Mr. Chandradeep Prasad, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Smita Jha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Order on Board

27.02.2026

1. The appellant, who was the complainant before the learned trial Court, has filed the present acquittal appeal under Section 419 (4) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “ B.N.S.S. 2023”), against the impugned judgment dated 22.11.2024 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Cr.A. No. 190/2023, whereby the criminal appeal filed by the respondent/ accused was allowed, and he has been acquitted from the offence of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “N.I. Act”).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant prosecuted a Criminal Complaint Case No. 2299/2018 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur. It is the averment made in the complaint case by the complainant/appellant that the accused is the father- in-law of his friend Krishnakant Sharma. He borrowed Rs. 2 lakhs from him in the year 2017 for the reason of the marriage of his daughter and assured that he would return the amount within 10-12 months. Out of total amount of Rs. 2 lakhs, he repaid Rs. 30,000/- on various installments and when he repeatedly demanded his money back from the accused, he gave him a cheque of Rs. 1,70,000/- which was of Bank of Baroda, Pandari Branch, Raipur, bearing cheque No. 000112 dated 22.03.2018. when the said cheque was deposited by the complainant in his bank account on 23.03.2018, the said cheque was dishonoured by the payee bank on the ground of “funds insufficient” on 26.03.2018. The complainant served a legal demand notice through his counsel on 28.03.2018, but the said notice was not claimed by the accused, and it was returned unserved. Thereafter, the complaint case under Section 138 of N.I. Act was filed by the complainant before the learned trial Court on 26.04.2018.

3. The said complaint case was registered on 04.05.2018, and the process was issued to the accused. The accused was arrested and produced before the trial Court on 12.03.2019, and he was released on bail on the same day. At the same time, the details of the offence of Section 138 of N.I. Act was explained, which he denied and claimed trial. After recording evidence of the complainant, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. have been recorded in which he denied the circumstances that appears against him, pleaded innocence and have submitted that despite refund of entire borrowed amount, the complainant did not return his blank cheques which was given to him as a security of borrowed amount and when he threatened him, he served a notice through his counsel on 24.03.2018, thereafter, the complainant filed the false case against him. One defence witness has been examined by the accused.

4. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court, vide its judgment dated 31.07.2023, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him for S.I. for 3 months, with compensation of Rs. 2 Lakh, which was payable to the complainant. The compensation was ordered to be paid within 2 months, failing which 3 months additional S.I. was also awarded to the accused.

5. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.07.2023, was challenged by the accused before the learned App