Mahesh Chandrakar vs Satish Chandrakar
2025 Latest Caselaw 668 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Mahesh Chandrakar vs Satish Chandrakar on 22 July, 2025

                                                     1




        Digitally                                                 2025:CGHC:35222
        signed by
        SOURABH
SOURABH PATEL
PATEL   Date:
        2025.07.24
                                                                                  NAFR
        12:32:49
        +0530

                           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                                          CRR No. 227 of 2019


                     1 - Satish Chandrakar S/o Goverdhan Chandrakar Aged About
                     35 Years R/o Zone-01, Road No. 06, L. I. G.-19, Padmanabhpur,
                     District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                        --- Applicant
                                                  versus


                     1 - Mahesh Chandrakar S/o Shri Churaman Chandrakar Aged
                     About 50 Years R/o 131, D, Rishali, P. S. Navai, Tehsil And
                     District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                      --- Respondent

For Applicant : Mr. Shaswat Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Yashraj Verma, Advocate.

1 - Mahesh Chandrakar S/o Shri Churaman Chandrakar Aged About 50 Years R/o 131-D, Risali, Thana- Newai, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh.

---Applicant Versus 1 - Satish Chandrakar S/o Goverdhan Chandrakar Aged About 35 Years R/o Zone No.1, Sa.Na. L I G -19, Padmanabhpur, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent

For Applicant : Mr. Yashraj Verma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Shashwat Mishra, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Order on Board 22/07/2025

1. Since both the revisions arise out of same judgment dated

14.01.2019, passed by the Additional Session Judge, Durg

(C.G.), wherein the Criminal Appeal No. 0000214/2018

filed by Satish Chandrakar and the Criminal Appeal No.

0000226/2018 filed by the complainant Mahesh

Chandrakar have been dismissed affirming the order dated

27.07.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Durg, in Complaint Case No. 6353/2015, whereby Satish

Chandrakar has been convicted under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced till the rising

of the Court and a compensation of Rs.37 Lakhs, they are

being heard and disposed of by this common order.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complaint case was

filed against the accused Satish Chandrakar on

22.07.2015, by the complainant under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant alleged that

the accused and complainant were partners in a business

dealing with the purchase and sale of land/plots. Upon

dissolution of the partnership, profits were distributed

between them, with each receiving ₹9,00,000. However,

one unsold plot worth ₹21,00,000 was left undistributed,

which the accused wished to retain. The accused took the

plot and an additional ₹9,00,000, and in consideration,

issued four cheques to the complainant: three cheques of

₹9,00,000 each and one cheque of ₹3,00,000, all drawn on

ICICI Bank. When presented, the cheques were dishonored

due to insufficient funds.

3. Mr. Shaswat Mishra, learned counsel for the accused,

Satish Chandrakar, informs the Court that he has not in

contact with him. He further submits that the accused has

already complied with the trial Court's order by paying the

compensation amount of ₹37 lakhs to the complainant.

4. The complainant, Mahesh Chandrakar, appeared in person

along with his counsel Mr. Yashraj verma and admitted

that he has received the compensation amount of Rs.37

Lakhs from the accused, Satish Chandrakar.

5. In view of the fact that the accused Satish Chandrakar has

already paid Rs.37 Lakhs to the complainant as per the

trial Court's order, which has been accepted by the

complainant, no further orders are deemed necessary in

the aforementioned revision petitions. Consequently, I do

not find it necessary to interfere with the orders passed by

the trial Court and the appellate Court.

6. Accordingly, recording the statement of the complainant

Mahesh Chandrakar, both the criminal revisions are

disposed of at this stage.

Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

Sourabh P.