IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 13 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 51120 of 2024

RAHUL PRAJAPATI

Versus

PREMPRAKASH PRAJAPATI

Appearance:

Shri Ghanshyam Barman - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1].

ORDER petitioner under Section 420 of IPC at Crime No.519/2023. A written compromise deed was executed between the parties on 12.12.2023 and the dispute has been settled between the parties that an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- has to be paid by the present petitioner to the respondent/complainant in respect of the compromise. Petitioner issued a cheque dated 29.12.2023, subject matter of this writ petition, bearing Cheque No.000030 of Rs.1.00 lac which was presented by the respondent before concerning bank was dishonored and returned unpaid on 06.01.2024 with a remark of "Signature Differ". Out of Rs.10.00 lac, only Rs.1.00 lac has been paid by issuance of the said cheque. It was settled by both the parties that remaining amount would be paid by the petitioner on 01.12.2024. On account of dishonor of the cheque No.000030, respondent/complainant sent a notice to the petitioner, therefore, it was send by the Advocate by registered post on 15.01.2024.

The present petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 20.07.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tehsil Beena, District Sagar in SC NIA/69/2024 and quash the entire

proceedings pending before the concerned court.

2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent filed

a complaint against him before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Beena, District Sagar under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the "NI Act"). The respondent/complainant is proprietors of Venus Testing and Research Laboratory Firm, situated at Kosamnara, Raigarh (C.G.). The present petitioner was the employee of the respondent's firm committed some embezzlement of amount and therefore, registered the offence against the

3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is pertinent to mention that after dishonor of the said cheque, the petitioner/non-applicant was informed orally by the respondent/complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner made the payment of Rs.50,000/- on 08.01.2024 at around 5:52 P.M. through online vide Transaction I.D. No.T2401081751561041423403 and on 16.01.2024 at around 7:26 P.M. second transaction of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the respondent/complainant through online vide Transaction I.D.No.T2401161926256510529521. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that entire cheque was paid by the petitioner to the respondent/complainant. It is further submitted that respondent/complainant with an ill motive and malafidely misused the said cheque despite the entire payment made, again presented the aforesaid cheque before the bank and again got the cheque dishonored on 18.03.2024 and again send the legal notice through his advocate by registered post on 21.03.2024. The present petitioner gave reply through his Advocate by registered post on 03.04.2024 denying all the allegations made therein and very categorically stated that the cheque amount of Rs.1.00 lac has already paid through online transaction. Despite the second reply by the petitioner thereby clarifying all the facts to the respondent/complainant, he by misusing the cheque filed a complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the aforesaid complaint was registered as SC NIA/69/2024. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that respondent/complainant himself admitted that the amount of Rs.1.00 lac has been paid by the petitioner but despite the same case was registered by the learned trial Court. Therefore, the present petition has bene filed challenging the illegality and i