IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 6 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 45704 of 2023 BASANT MOHITE Versus ANKIT SONI Appearance:

Shri Sukh Nandan Pandey - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Karunanidhi Bundela, Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 16.08.2023 passed by the th

11 Additional Sessions Judge Mauganj, District Rewa, whereby the revision preferred by the respondent was allowed. By the impugned order, the revisional Court set aside the order dated 05.03.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Mauganj, in Complaint Case No. SCNIA/11/2022, by which cognizance had been taken against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The revisional Court held the complaint to be barred by limitation and, consequently, quashed the order taking cognizance and acquitted the respondent.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mauganj, District Rewa alleging that the respondent with whom the petitioner had a business relationship, purchased jewellery and in discharge of the said liability, issued a duly signed cheque bearing No.486240002 dated 25.10.2021 for a sum of ₹3,00,000/-. Upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured vide Bank Memo dated 05.11.2021 on the ground of “insufficiency of funds”. Thereafter, despite being informed of the dishonour and repeated requests made by the petitioner, the respondent failed to make payment. Consequently, the petitioner issued a statutory legal notice through registered post, which was duly served upon the respondent. However, the respondent deliberately failed to make payment within the stipulated statutory period. Accordingly, the petitioner filed complaint before the trial court wherein cognizance had been taken against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by the trial court being aggrieved by the said order respondent filed a revision before the 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Mauganj, District Rewa wherein preferred by the respondent was allowed by order dated 16.08.2023. being aggrieved by the said order present petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Revisional Court is contrary to law and the facts on record and is, therefore, illegal, erroneous, and unsustainable. A bare perusal of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class clearly demonstrates that the complaint filed by the petitioner was within the prescribed period of limitation. After examining the complaint in light of the Provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the learned trial Court rightly took cognizance of the offence and directed registration of the complaint. The order of cognizance passed by the learned Trial Court is based on a correct appreciation of facts and settled legal principles, whereas the revision preferred by the accused/respondent was wholly devoid of merit and ought to have been dismissed at the threshold. The learned Trial Court, in categorical terms, recorded a finding that the complaint was within limitation and proceeded in accordance with law. The revisionist/respondent failed to place any material before the revisional Court to substantiate the plea that the cheque in question was stolen or obtained by dishonest or fraudulent means. In absence of any supporting evidence, the revisional Court committed a patent error in quashing the well-reasoned order of the trial Court. The finding that the complaint was barred by limitation reflects complete non-application of judicial mind. That the complaint squarely satisfies all the es