Sai Traders vs Rajesh Chedavi
2025 Latest Caselaw 3305 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Sai Traders vs Rajesh Chedavi on 26 June, 2025

                                                                     1




                                                                                    2025:CGHC:28104
                                                                                                  NAFR

                                         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                                          ACQA No. 247 of 2021

                            1 - Sai Traders Village Baagur (Gandai) Through Proprietor Smt. Vijay Laxmi,
                            W/o Sanjay Rajput, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Baagur, Police Station Gandai
                            District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
                                                                                            ... Appellant


                                                                 versus


                            1 - Rajesh Chedavi S/o Ramji Chedavi, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Behind
                            Karpatri Higher Secondary School, Adivasi Mangal Bhawan, Kawardha,
                            Police Station Kawardha District Kabirdham (C.G.)
                                                                                        ... Respondent

For Appellant : Shri Basant Dewangan, Advocate.

                            For Respondent       :   Shri Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate appears
                                                     on     behalf   of   Shri   Dharmesh   Shrivastava,
                                                     Advocate.

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 20/10/2021 passed by the Judicial NARESH by NARESH KUMAR KUMAR KAMDE Date:

KAMDE 2025.06.27

Magistrate First Class, Kabirdham (C.G.) in Criminal Case 10:46:20 +0530

No.240/2015, whereby, the Respondent/accused has been

acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instrument Act, 1881.

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 20/10/2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Kabirdham (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.240/2015, 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