Chattisgarh High Court
Monalisa Agrawal vs Gokulanand Khamhari on 26 June, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:28221
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 65 of 2023
1 - Monalisa Agrawal W/o Shri Ajay Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 43 Years,
Proprietor Of M/s Mahalaxmi Tractors, Through Power Of Attorney Shri
Brijmohan Agrawal, Aged About 73 Years, R/o Danipara, Tahsil and District :
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
1 - Gokulanand Khamhari S/o Shri Tularam Khamhari, R/o Baddhara, Post
Kanaktura, Tahsil Lakhanpur, Police Station Rengali, District : Jharsuguda *,
Orissa
... Respondent
For Appellant : Shri Samyak Shinde, Advocate appears on behalf
of Shri Mayank Kumar, Advocate.
For Respondent : None.
SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal
Judgment on Board
26/06/2025
1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant under
Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against
the judgment of acquittal dated 20/12/2022 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) in Complaint
Case No.240/2011, whereby, the Respondent/accused has been
acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable
NARESH KUMAR
KUMAR KAMDE
Instrument Act, 1881.
Date:
KAMDE 2025.06.27
10:46:18 +0530
2) At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits
that recently in the judgment dated 08/04/2025 rendered by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Celestium Financial
vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., reported in 2025 INSC 804, right to file
appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. was discussed and it
was held that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal
against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused and
such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies
against the order of conviction of such Court. Learned Counsel for
the appellant submits further that the Supreme Court in the said
matter has reserved the liberty in favour of the petitioner therein to
prefer an appeal in the light of the provisions of Section 372 of the
Cr.P.C, and, therefore, in the instant case also the appellant may be
permitted to withdraw this appeal with liberty to prefer an appeal
before the concerned Session Judge under proviso to Section 372
Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He further submits that the limitation may
not come in the way while deciding the appeal on its merits.
3) Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in case an appeal
is filed, the respondent will not insist upon the limitation.
4) In the light of the submissions made herein-above and considering
the law declared by the Supreme Court in the said matter, this
Court is inclined to permit the appellant to withdraw this appeal by
granting him liberty to prefer the appeal against the impugned
judgment dated 20/12/2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) in Complaint Case
No.240/2011, before the concerned Sessions Judge within a period
of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Order
accordingly.
5) It is clarified that if such an appeal is preferred before the concerned
Session Judge 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.
6) Registry shall return the certified copy of the impugned judgment
and relevant documents to counsel for the appellant after retaining
the photocopy of the same and, shall remit the record to the
concerned Court forthwith.
7) Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal)
JUDGE
Kamde
