Chattisgarh High Court
Piramal Petroleum Private Limited vs Md. Majahir Jafari on 26 August, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM SINGH
SINGH RAGHUVANSHI
RAGHUVANSHI
Date: 2025.08.29
18:36:03 +0530
2025:CGHC:43324
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 310 of 2025
Piramal Petroleum Private Limited Through Director Shri Vaibhav
Agrawal S/o Nand Kishore Agrawal Aged About 37 Years R/o House
No. 78, Address - Sector -1 Geetanjali Nagar Tahsil And District - Raipur
(C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
Md. Majahir Jafari Proprietor M/s Adarsh Traders Address - Office -1
Tatyapara Main Road Mominpara, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
26.08.2025
1. This acquittal appeal U/s 419(4) of BNSS has been filed against the
judgment dated 24.06.2024 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Complaint Case
No.26/2024 whereby, the case of the appellant filed against
respondent/accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 was dismissed for want of prosecution. The
Petitioner/complainant has challenged the said order in Criminal
Revision NO. 350/2024 before the Additional Sessions Judge,
Raipur(C.G.) and vide order dated 06.11.2024, the learned
Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision as it was not
maintainable.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that recently
the Supreme Court has delivered a judgment in the matter of M/s.
Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. reported in 2025
INSC 804 holding that the complainant in a complaint filed under
section 138 of the Act of 1881 is also a victim as defined in section
2(wa) of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 2(y) of Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the "BNSS"). He submits that the
Supreme Court has further held that the complainant in a complaint
under section 138 of the Act of 1881 can also be entitled to file an
appeal under proviso to section 372 Cr.P.C. corresponding to
Section 413 of the BNSS. Learned counsel submits that the case
may be disposed of reserving liberty so as to avail the said remedy.
3. The dismissal of the complaint case by the trial Court has the effect
of acquitting the accused/Respondent. The Sessions Court has not
considered the revision against him to be maintainable. In the light
of Celestium Financial (supra), the appeal is maintainable.
Therefore, the order of the Revisional Court dated 06.11.2024 is set
aside.
4. In view of the aforesaid and considering the law declared in the
matter of Celestium Financial (supra), this Appeal stands
disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the appellant to file an
appeal within a period of 60 days from this order before the
appropriate Court, in accordance with law. It is further 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 proceed to decide the same in
accordance with law.
5. Registry shall return the certified copy of the impugned
judgment/order and relevant documents to counsel for the
appellant after retaining the photocopy of the same.
6. Registry shall send back the record to the concerned Court.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Shubham
