Chattisgarh High Court
Vinay Kaniya vs Shankar Ishrani on 5 May, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:20473
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 166 of 2023
Vinay Kaniya, S/o Shri Shankar Kaniya, Aged About 32 Years, R/o H-23, Gali
No. 02, Rajiv Nagar, Shankar Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
Shankar Ishrani S/o Late Narayan Ishrani, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Bombay
Market, Infront of Raj Talkies, District Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Appellant : Shri C.R. Sahu, Advocate.
For Respondent : Shri D.K. Gwalre, Advocate.
Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal
Order on Board
05/05/2025
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant
under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated
04/04/2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.2230/2019,
whereby, the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, has been rejected.
2. From perusal of the complaint, it appears that a cheque dated
02/02/2019 (Ex.P/1) for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was issued by the
NARESH by NARESH
KUMAR KAMDE
KUMAR Date:
KAMDE 2025.05.05
18:36:43 +0530
respondent in favour of the complainant-Vinay Kaniya drawn from
the Bank, known as Karur Vysya Bank.
3. It is alleged by the complainant that when the alleged cheque
was presented before the ICICI Bank on 04/02/2019 at Branch
Jaistambh Chowk, Police Station Maudhapara, Raipur in his Bank
Account No.134701503776, it was dis-honoured, therefore, a notice
dated 19/02/2019 (Ex.P/3) was issued, however, despite the service
of the said notice, neither the alleged amount was paid to him, nor
even the reply of his alleged notice was given, therefore, he has
been constrained to file the complaint, made on 08/03/2019.
4. It, however, appears from perusal of the alleged cheque dated
02/02/2019 (Ex.P/1) that although it was alleged by the complainant
that the same was issued by the respondent, but, when he was
examined before the Court, it was stated by him (PW-1) at para 20
that he is not aware that whose signature is there in the alleged
cheque. It is to be seen further, as reflected from para 22 of his
testimony, that the respondent is more than 50 years old, however,
when the complaint was made, his age was, however, mentioned as
30 years. That apart, the alleged notice (Ex.P/3) was issued on
19/02/2019, as reflected from para 16 of the complainant's own
admission, but, the receipt (Ex.P/2) for issuance of the alleged
notice, would, however, shown to be issued on 18/02/2019. It, thus,
appears that neither the alleged cheque was issued by the
respondent, nor the notice (Ex.P/3), appears to have been issued by
the complainant with regard to the dis-honour of the alleged cheque.
Even otherwise, the alleged cheque appears to have been issued of
the Karur Vysya Bank, however, no information was furnished by the
said Bank that the alleged cheque (Ex.P/1) was dis-honoured,
because the respondent-Shankar Ishrani has insufficient fund in his
account.
5. In view of the aforesaid background, I do not find any infirmity
in the judgment under appeal, acquitting the respondent from
commission of the alleged crime.
6. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed at
the admission stage itself.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal)
JUDGE
Kamde
