Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok Kumar Rai vs Brijbihari Raghuwanshi on 12 March, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12741
1 CRA-12554-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12554 of 2023
ASHOK KUMAR RAI
Versus
BRIJBIHARI RAGHUWANSHI
Appearance:
Vivek Agrawal - advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Abhishek Singh - Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
This appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
appellant against the order dated 28.8.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Udaipura District Raisen in SCNIA/15/2020 whereby the
respondent has been acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant
preferred a complaint against the respondent under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act before the trial Court alleging inter alia, that the
appellant being in friendly terms with respondent, on his demand, issued a
Cheque No.681981 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the respondent;
that in due course when the appellant presented the said cheque for
encashment, the same was dishonourd with the remark "insufficient balance".
Thereafter, notice was sent by the appellant to the respondent in that regard,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12741
2 CRA-12554-2023
but the same was not paid any heed to. However, upon issuance of the notice
by the trial Court of the complaint filed by the appellant, the respondent
appeared and pleaded that he never gave the cheque in question to the
appellant and he also made a complaint to the police alleging missing and
misuse of the cheque in question.
3. The counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned order
passed by the trial Court while holding that the cheque in question was not
issued to the respondent for any legal debts, is erroneous. The counsel
contends that the trial Magistrate without appreciating the facts and
circumstances of the case in proper perspective has acquitted the respondent
of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, whereas
necessary ingredients to constitute the offence are attracted. Hence, submits
that the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
4 . Per contra, the counsel for the respondent has opposed the
submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and contended the trial
Court did not commit any error while passing the impugned order and the
same is impeccable. The counsel contends that the present appeal having no
substance, is liable to be dismissed.
5 . Heard the submission advanced on behalf of the parties and perused
the record.
6 . Having considered the submissions, a perusal of the record reflects
that the appellant/complainant in paragraph No.15 of his cross-examination
has no where stated, that on which date, time and place the cheque in
question was given by him to the respondent. Further, the appellant has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12741
3 CRA-12554-2023
admitted that he is unable to state that for what purpose the transaction was
entered into between the appellant and the respondent and before whom the
said cheque was handed over by him to the respondent. The trial Court in
paragraph No.11 of the impugned judgment paraphrased his findings in
detail, in respect of the deposition made by the complainant/appellant before
the trial Court in paragraph No.15 of his cross-examination.
7. In the considered view of this Court, the trial Court has ascribed
cogent and plausible findings while passing the impugned order of acquittal
of the respondent and the same does not warrant any interference in the
instant appeal filed by the appellant.
8. Consequently, the present appeal being sans substance, deserves to
be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(MAINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
ac
