After Complainant Repeatedly Misses Evidence Hearings, Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Dismissal Of Cheque-Bounce Complaint

The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. After his examination-in-chief was recorded on 29 December 2022, his cross-examination remained pending.

The Trial Court granted repeated opportunities to the complainant to give evidence; on 20 June 2025, neither the complainant nor his counsel appeared despite the case being called three times, and the complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution. The complainant’s appeal was dismissed. In revision, he argued that his counsel had mistakenly noted the next hearing date as 26 June 2025.

The revision was brought under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The complaint arose under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Court observed that cases should ordinarily be decided on their merits rather than dismissed on technical or trivial grounds; however, revisional interference was not warranted where the dismissal disclosed no perversity or illegality and the complainant’s conduct showed persistent negligence.

The Court considered the complainant’s repeated failure to appear despite numerous opportunities, including approximately fifteen listings after his examination-in-chief for completion of his deposition.

It rejected the explanation that counsel had noted the wrong date, observing that the order sheet for 17 April 2025 did not bear the complainant’s counsel’s signature and appeared to bear only the defence counsel’s signature. In light of the complainant’s conduct and the matter’s prolonged pendency without meaningful progress, the Court found no perversity or illegality warranting revisional intervention.

The challenged appellate judgment and Trial Court order therefore remained undisturbed; any pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.