Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Kirti Kurian vs Ajay Singh on 16 July, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:33200
Digitally signed by AJAY
KUMAR DWIVEDI
DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR
DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH
COURT OF
CHHATTISGARH,
o=HIGH COURT OF NAFR
CHHATTISGARH,
st=CHATTISGARH, c=IN
Date: 2025.07.16
16:21:01 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 198 of 2019
Smt. Kirti Kurian W/o Shri Rajji Kurian Aged About 46 Years Through The Power Of
Attorney Holder Rajji Kurian S/o Shri Thaomas Kurian, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Ews 188,
M.P. Nagar, Korba, Tahsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant.
versus
Ajay Singh S/o Late Ram Udar Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o Qt. No. Mig 11/10,
Koshabadi, Infront Of Dr. Banchhor (Navjeevan Clinic), Koshabadi, Korba, Tahsil And
District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Future Colony, Gharshiva, Raipur, Tahsil And
District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent.
For Appellant. : Ms. Anjana Banjare, Adv on behalf of Mr. Abhijeet Sarkar, Advocate.
For Respondent : None.
SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
Order on Board
16.07.2025
1. The appellant has filed this acquittal appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 11.04.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba, District Korba in Criminal Case No.386/2014, whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, "the NI Act").
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that against the judgment dated 11.04.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, an 2 appeal has been preferred in terms of Section 372 Cr.P.C. before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Korba which has been dismissed vide order dated 05.10.2018 as not maintainable and on the ground that the concerned Court has no jurisdiction to decide an appeal against acquittal in complaint case. Hence, this appeal has been filed. However, she would submits that recently in the judgment dated 08.04.2025 rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. (2025 INSC
804), it has been held that the complainant in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act is also a victim as defined in Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 2(y) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS 2023). It is also held that the complainant in a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act can also be entitled to file an appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 413 of the BNSS. Therefore, at this juncture the this appeal may be disposed of as withdrawn reserving the liberty to file fresh appeal before the concerned Sessions Court under the proviso of Section 372 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 413 of the BNSS. She also prays that the limitation may not come in the way while deciding the appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the documents on record.
4. In view of the aforesaid submission and considering the law declared in the matter of M/s Celestium Financial (supra), this appeal is disposed of as withdrawn reserving the liberty in favour of the appellant to file an appeal against the impugned order within a period of 45 days from today before the Sessions Court, in accordance with law. It is also made clear that if such an appeal is filed before the concerned Court within the time given by this Court, it would not insist upon the limitation while deciding the same and will decide the same in accordance with law.
3
5. Registry shall return the certified copy of the order/judgment and relevant documents to counsel for the appellant after retaining its photocopy.
6. Registry shall send back the record to the concerned Court.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay