Ashok Kumar Gupta vs Prem Singh Chouhan
2023 Latest Caselaw 315 Chatt

                                    1

                                                                    NAFR

       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                        CRMP No. 1725 of 2022

    Ashok Kumar Gupta S/o Late Haridas Gupta Aged About 57
     Years R/o Haldibadi, Chirmiri, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur),
     Chhattisgarh

                                                          ---- Petitioner

                               Versus

    Prem Singh Chouhan S/o Late Dharm Singh Yadav, Aged About
     80 Years R/o Smriti Bhawan, Near Shahid Square, Station Road,
     Durg District Durg, Chhattisgarh

                                                         ---- Respondent

For Petitioner Mr. Hemant Kumar Agarwal, Advocate For Respondent Mr. Mohnish Kumar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate

SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board

16/1/2023

1. Heard.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated

2.7.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.69/2022 passed by the

Second Additional Sessions Judge, Durg upholding the order

dated 26.3.2022 passed in Criminal Complaint Case

No.1035/2019 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (CG),

for framing of the charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

demand notice was never served on the petitioner; there is no

legally enforceable debt; and the petitioner is under the

category of money lender, therefore, the suit is barred under

Section 11-H of the Chhattisgarh Money Lenders Act, 1934 (in

short "the Act". Hence, he prays to allow the petition and quash

the entire criminal proceeding pending before the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Durg.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant would submit

that the petitioner is not a money lender, therefore, the

aforesaid Section referred by learned counsel for the petitioner

does not attract in this case. He further submits that the

defence taken by the petitioner/accused may be seen during the

trial. He submits that there is no merit in the petition, which

calls for any interference. He further submits that the as the

petitioner has refused to accept the registered notice, there is a

deemed service of notice upon him. He places reliance on

judgment dated 2.9.2020 rendered in the matter of Sri

Chikkahonnaiah Vs. Smt. Basamma @ Bindu passed by the

High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Revision Petition No.142 of

2011.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the

documents annexed along with the petition.

6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the

parties and particularly considering the defence taken by the

petitioner/accused, which may be seen during the trial and

further considering the parameters for quashing the FIR as well

as the settled principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court

in the matter of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal

and others, 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335, and the allegations and

averments made and the material available on record, this Court

is of the opinion that the provisions contained under Section

11-H of the Act, does not attract in the instant case.

7. The petition being bereft of any merits, is liable to be and is

accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

Shyna