[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Dilip Kumar Singh vs Smt. Usha Sanpariya on 8 April, 2026
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
1
2026:CGHC:16138
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 338 of 2005
1 - Dilip Kumar Singh S/o Late Ravipratap Singh, R/o Ambikapur,
Kenabandh, District - Surguja, C.G.
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - Smt. Usha Sanpariya w/o Purushottam Sanpariya, R/o Mahamaya Road,
Ambikapur, District - Surguja, C.G.
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order On Board
08.04.2026
1. Pursuant to the order dated 20.03.2026, the Registrar (J) has
submitted its report. Since, the officer concerned has already been
transferred, without proceeding any further in the matter relating to
enquiry, it is closed.
2. Aslo, heard on merits of the case.
3. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the order
dated 24.06.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) in Complaint Case No.
KISHORE DESHMUKH
KUMAR Date:
DESHMUKH 2026.04.09
17:34:22
1763/2003 by which the complaint filed by the complainant under
+0530
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the NI
Act, 1881") has been dismissed as barred by limitation.
4. The brief facts, as reflected from the record, are that the complainant
filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 and Section 420 of the IPC alleging that the accused had taken a
loan of Rs. 3,49,000/- from him on 17.07.2002 for business purposes,
and from the said amount the accused was running her medical
business. He had given the loan amount on account of old
acquaintance and friendly relations between them. At the time of
availing the loan, the accused assured the complainant that the
amount would be returned within one year or as and when demanded.
After lapse of one year, on demand being made, the accused issued a
cheque dated 27.10.2003 bearing No. 9784013 in favour of the
complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque in his
account bearing No. 159 maintained at the State Bank of Indore,
Ambikapur Branch. However, on 18.11.2003, the cheque was returned
unpaid with an endorsement that the payment had been stopped by
the drawer. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the accused, who
assured him that the amount would be paid in cash within a week. On
27.11.2003, when the complainant again approached the accused, she
avoided payment on one pretext or the other. Looking to the conduct of
the accused, the complainant realized that she was not willing to pay
the amount. Therefore, the complainant sent a statutory notice through
his advocate on 04.12.2003, which was returned on 17.12.2003 with
the endorsement that the accused had refused to receive the
envelope. Subsequently, on 21.12.2003, the husband of the accused
assured the complainant that the amount would be paid within 4-5
days and requested him not to initiate legal proceedings. However,
despite lapse of the said period, the amount was not paid which
compelled the complainant to file the present complaint case on
29.12.2003.
5. The complainant was examined on 29.12.2003, and his evidence was
closed. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 30.12.2003, and notice
was issued to the accused. On 31.01.2004, the notice was received
unserved, consequently, fresh notice was issued. The case was again
taken up on 20.02.2004 and 21.02.2004, on which dates notices were
repeatedly issued to the accused, despite this, she failed to appear
before the Court. Looking to the non-appearance of the accused, a
bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- was issued against her on
22.03.2004 to secure her presence. On 05.04.2004, as the accused
again failed to appear, again bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.
10,000/- was issued. Despite the same, the accused did not appear on
27.04.2004, and accordingly, a warrant of arrest was issued against
her and, on 29.04.2004, the accused was produced before the Court.
Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on various dates, namely
15.05.2004, 07.06.2004, 17.06.2004, 21.06.2004, and 22.06.2004. On
21.06.2004, the accused filed her reply/defence contending that she
had issued a blank cheque to the complainant on 18.07.2002. It was
further contended that she had taken a loan of Rs. 1,34,900/- from the
complainant on the said date through three bank drafts amounting to
Rs. 49,900/-, Rs. 40,000/-, and Rs. 45,000/-, along with Rs. 100/-
towards incidental charges, and that the said blank cheque was given
as security in lieu of the aforesaid amount.
6. Relying upon the defence of the accused and the material available on
record, the learned trial Court recorded a finding that the complainant
had received the cheque on 18.07.2002 and had given a loan of Rs.
1,35,000/-. It was further held that the complainant himself filled in the
cheque by altering the date from 18.07.2002 to 27.10.2003 and the
amount from Rs. 1,35,000/- to Rs. 3,49,500/-. On the basis of the
aforesaid findings, the learned trial Court treated 18.07.2002 as the
date of issuance of the cheque and consequently held that the
complaint was barred by limitation, and accordingly dismissed the
complaint vide order dated 24.06.2004. Being aggrieved by the said
impugned order dated 24.06.2004, the appellant preferred
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 1741/2004, which has subsequently
been converted into the present Criminal Appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that learned trial Court
has erred both on facts and in law in dismissing the complaint as
barred by limitation. He would further submit that he received
information regarding dishonour of cheque on 18.11.2003, he issued
statutory notice on 04.12.2003 and refusal of notice by the accused
received to him on 17.12.2003 as such, filing of the complaint on
29.12.2003 is well within limitation. Therefore,, the finding recorded by
the learned trial Court is wholly erroneous and liable to be set aside.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposing the
contention made by the appellant would submit that the learned trial
Court has rightly dismissed the complaint after appreciating the
material available on record. The impugned order does not suffer from
any illegality or perversity and therefore does not call for interference.
The learned trial Court has rightly observed that the complainant
himself filled the cheque by changing the date from 18.07.2002 to
27.10.2003 and the amount from Rs. 1,35,000/- to Rs. 3,49,500/-. He
would further submit that the alleged cheque pertains to the year 2002,
whereas the same was presented after delay of more than one year on
27.10.2003, therefore, the complaint is barred by limitation and would
pray for dismissal of the present appeal.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction.
10. From perusal of record, it is quite vivid that the learned trial Court has
treated the date of issuance of cheque as 18.07.2002 and
consequently held the complaint to be barred by limitation. It is not
sustainable in the eyes of law, as the cause of action under Section
138 of the NI Act arises from the date of dishonour of cheque and
compliance of statutory requirements thereafter. The Negotiable
Instruments Act has been amended on 06.02.2003 and the time for
notice has been enhanced from 15 days to 30 days. Since, in the
present case the information regarding dishonour of cheque due to
stop payment was received on 18.11.2003 and notice was issued on
under N.I. Act to the accused on 04.12.2003 and the complaint has
been filed on 29.12.2003, as such, the complaint case is maintainable
and with limitation.
11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.06.2004 passed by the
learned trial Court is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to
the learned trial Court with a direction to restore the complaint case to
its original number and to proceed with the case afresh in accordance
with law, after affording reasonable opportunity to both the parties to
lead evidence and decide the matter on merits, uninfluenced by any
observations made hereinabove, preferably within an outer limit of 9
months from the date of first appearance of the accused, since the
matter pertains to year 2004.
12. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned court on
08.05.2026 for further proceeding. The Registry is directed to transmit
the record to the trial Court immediately.
13. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant appeal is
allowed in part.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Deshmukh
