Trilochan Singh Chawla vs M/S Tuteja Medical Agency
2025 Latest Caselaw 2532 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Trilochan Singh Chawla vs M/S Tuteja Medical Agency on 20 March, 2025

Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas

Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas

                                                              1




                                                                              2025:CGHC:13232


                                                                                              NAFR



                                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                                   ACQA No. 3 of 2025


                      1 - Trilochan Singh Chawla S/o Surjeet Singh Chawla Aged About 76 Years
                      R/o Surjeet Niwas Ravi Nagar, Raja Talab, Raipur, P.S.- Civil Lines, District-
                      Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Wrongly Mentioned Without 'age' In Annexure A/1
                      Impugned Judgment)
                                                                                         --- Appellant


                                                          versus


                      1 - M/s Tuteja Medical Agency Address- Shop No. 7, New Medical Complex,
                      Rajbandha Maidan, G.E. Road, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh


                      2 - Navjeet Singh Tuteja S/o Amrik Singh Tuteja, Proprietor Of M/s Tuteja
                      Medical Agency, R/o- Tuteja House, Near United Blood Bank, Govind Nagar,
                      Rajatalab, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Details Of Respondent No.S

1 And 2 As Mentioned In Annexure A/1- Impugned Judgement)

--- Respondent(s) KISHORE KUMAR

1 - Trilochan Singh Chawla S/o Surjeet Singh Chawla Aged About 76 Years R/o Surjeet Niwas, Ravi Nagar, Raja Talab, Raipur, P.S. - Civil Lines, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Wrongly Mentioned Without Age In Annexure A/1 Impugned Judgement). (Complainant)

---Appellant(s)

Versus

1 - M/s Tuteja Medical Agency, Address - Shop No. 7, New Medical Complex, Rajbandha Maidan, G.E. Road, Raipur, District - Raipur, C.G. (Details As Mention In Annexure A/1- Impugned Judgment) (Accused / Non Applicants)

2 - Navjeet Singh Tuteja S/o Amrik Singh Tuteja Proprietor Of M/s Tuteja Medical Agency, R/o - Tuteja House, Near United Blood Bank, Govind Nagar, Rajatalab, Raipur, District - Raipur, C.G. (Details As Mention In Annexure A/1- Impugned Judgment) (Accused / Non Applicants)

--- Respondent(s)

1 - Trilochan Singh Chawla S/o Surjeet Singh Chawla Aged About 76 Years R/o Surjeet Niwas, Ravi Nagar, Raja Talab, Raipur, P.S. Civil Lines, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mentioned Without Age In Annexure A/1 Impugned Judgment) (Complainant)

---Appellant(s)

Versus

1 - M/s Tuteja Medical Agency Address- Shop No. 7, New Medical Complex, Rajbadha Maidan, G.E. Road, Raipur, District - Raipur, C.G. (Accused / Non- Applicant)

2 - Navjeet Singh Tuteja S/o Amrik Singh Tuteja Proprietor Of M/s Tutega Medical Agency, R/o- Tuteja House, Near United Blood Bank, Govind Nagar, Rajatalab, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Details Of Respondent No. S 1 And 2 As Mentioned In Annexure A/1 Impugned Judgment) (Accused/non- Applicant)

--- Respondent(s)

1 - Trilochan Singh Chawla S/o Surjeet Singh Chawla Aged About 76 Years R/o Ravi Nagar, Raja Talab, Raipur, P.S. Civil Lines, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mentioned Without Age In Annexure A/1 Impugned Judgment)

---Appellant(s)

Versus

1 - M/s Tuteja Medical Agency Address - Shop No. 7, New Medical Complex, Rajbandha Maidan, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2 - Navjeet Singh Tuteja S/o Amrik Singh Tuteja Proprietor Of M/s Tuteja Medical Agency, R/o Tuteja House, Near United Blood Bank, Govind Nagar, Rajatalab, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh (Details Of Respondent No. 1 And 2 As Mentioned In Annexure A/1- Impugned Judgment) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Smita Jha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order On Board 20.03.2025

1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in the bunch of

these acquittal appeals, they are being heard and disposed off by this

common order.

2. These appeals have been preferred by the appellant assailing the

orders dated 14.05.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1428/2017,

1427/2017, 1431/2017 and 1429/2017 by which the complaints filed by

the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

1881 (for short "the NI Act, 1881") have been dismissed for want of

prosecution.

3. The brief facts as reflected from records are that the complainant is a

76 year old person filed complaint on 22.05.2017 under Section 138 of

the NI Act, 1881 alleging that he has provided loan to the respondents

and the respondents to clear the said debt/liabiity issued following

cheques detailed in tabular form :-

      Sr. No.       Bank        Cheque No.         Date          Amount

         1.      Axis Bank        364382        26.12.2016    Rs. 5,00,000/-

         2.      Axis Bank        165691        27.12.2016    Rs. 1,00,000/-

         3.      Axis Bank        364383        26.12.2016    Rs. 5,00,000/-

         4.      Axis Bank        364352        26.12.2016    Rs. 5,00,000/-

4. Subsequently, he submitted the cheques in his bank account

maintained at Oriental Bank of Commerce, however, the said cheques

returned back with endorsement that the account has been closed. The

complainant sent a legal notice to the accused on 04.04.2017 but

neither the respondents paid the amount nor replied the notice. This

necessitated him to file complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act,

1881 on 22.05.2017.

5. Record of the case would show that learned trial Court framed charges

on 05.09.2018 and the matter was pending for trial. However, on

25.01.2024, 05.02.2024, 21.02.2024, 22.03.2024, 30.03.2024 and

16.04.2024 the appellant failed to appear before the learned trial Court

and the matter was fixed for hearing on 14.05.2024. On the said date

the matter was called thrice at 1:00 pm, 03:00 pm and 05:00 pm and

neither the appellant nor his counsel appeared before the trial Court,

therefore, the learned trial Court dismissed the complaints for want of

prosecution. Challenging the impugned orders dated 14.05.2024, the

appellant has filed present acquittal appeals.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the complainant

was prosecuting his cases sincerely but the respondents were taking

objections which have caused delay in disposal of the matter. However,

on the dates 25.01.2024, 05.02.2024, 21.02.2024, 22.03.2024,

30.03.2024, 16.04.2024 and 14.05.2024 due to medical difficulty he

could not appear before the Court as such, the non-appearance of the

appellant is bonafide, therefore, the Court should have taken lenient

view however, taking hyper-technical view learned trial Court dismissed

the complaints. Therefore, he would pray for allowing the appeal and

restoration of the complaints.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposing the

contention made by the appellant would submit that neither the

complainant nor his counsel appeared before the trial Court despite

repeated calls, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed

the complaints filed by the complainant, which is just and proper and

does not warrant any interference by this Court and would pray for

dismissal of the appeal.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the respondent and perused the

documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction.

9. From perusal of record, it is quite vivid that the complaints were filed on

22.05.2017 and since then the appellant was prosecuting the case

sincerely however considering the submission made by the learned

counsel for the appellant that the appellant has some medical issues

which has caused absenteeism and this factual matrix has not been

disputed by the respondents by placing any material on record. Taking

into consideration that the matter was continuing since 2017 and has

not reached to its logical end even after lapse of more than 7 years and

all of a sudden on a hyper-technical ground the complaints have been

dismissed not on merit but for want of prosecution whereas efforts

should be made by the trial Court to conclude the trial on merits which

may show confidence on the litigants with regard to judicial system, I

am of the view of that the learned trial Court has committed illegality

and irregularity in dismissing the complaints.

10. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 14.05.2024 are quashed and

the complaint cases are restored to their original numbers. The trial

Court is directed to decide the same on merits of the case in

accordance with law.

11. Since the parties are represented before this Court, they are directed to

appear before the concerned court on 10.06.2025 for further

proceeding. Since, the appellant has some medical difficulty and has

submitted power of attorney in favour of his son, he has liberty to

appear before the trial Court through his power of attorney holder

unless otherwise not required for adjudication of the case. The

Registry is directed to transmit the record to the trial Court immediately.

12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant appeals are

allowed.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Deshmukh