IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 13 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 18657 of 2019 SAIRAM INTERNATIONAL THR Versus B. K. FLOOR MILL THR Appearance:

Shri Dibyang Dev Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the order dated 01.04.2019 passed by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Guna (M.P.) in Criminal Revision No. 76/2018 (Sairam International, Guna vs. B.K. Floor Mill). By the said order, the learned Revisional Court affirmed the order dated 12.02.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed for want of prosecution and non-payment of court fee.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent on account of dishonour of a cheque issued by the respondent. The said cheque was drawn by the respondent on his bank account maintained at O.B.C. Bank, Mathura (U.P.), for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards payment for wheat supplied by the petitioner. The cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt arising out of a business transaction between the parties. Due to the illness of the petitioner’s mother and other bona fide circumstances beyond his control, the petitioner could not deposit the required court fee in time. The petitioner had been seeking time from the learned Trial Court for payment of the court fee. However, on 12.02.2018, the counsel for the petitioner could not appear before the learned Trial Court at the time of hearing, and the learned Trial Court dismissed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for want of prosecution and non-payment of court fee. It is submitted that on the very same day, the petitioner’s counsel appeared before the learned Trial Court and prayed for grant of one further opportunity to deposit the required court fee. The learned Trial Court adjourned the case for hearing on 05.03.2018 along with the original record. However, no effective order was thereafter passed on the said application filed by the petitioner seeking opportunity to deposit the court fee. Being aggrieved by the order dated 12.02.2018, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Guna (M.P.). The learned Revisional Court, by order dated 01.04.2019, dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the order of the learned Trial Court without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the dismissal of the complaint for want of prosecution was harsh and unjustified. The absence of the petitioner’s counsel on a single date was neither intentional nor deliberate. The petitioner had a genuine and bona fide reason for seeking time to deposit the court fee. It is further submitted that proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are intended to ensure credibility of commercial transactions. The complaint relates to dishonour of cheque issued towards payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- for goods supplied and dismissing such complaint on technical grounds defeats the object of the statute. The learned Trial Court ought to have granted one reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to deposit the required court fee instead of dismissing the complaint. The power to dismiss a complaint for non- prosecution must be exercised cautiously and only in cases of wilful default. The learned Revisional Court also failed to appreciate that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The impugned orders have resulted in serious prejudice to the petitioner, who has been deprived of an opportunity to prosecute his complaint on merits. It is settled law that procedural rules are meant to advance j