Deenanath Naiyar (Wrongly Mentioned ... vs Akhilesh Purohit
2025 Latest Caselaw 4476 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Deenanath Naiyar (Wrongly Mentioned ... vs Akhilesh Purohit on 16 September, 2025

                                  1

                                      Digitally
                                      signed by
                                      BHOLA
                             BHOLA NATH
                             NATH   KHATAI
                             KHATAI Date:
                                    2025.09.17
                                      12:52:15
                                      +0530




                                                                NAFR

       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                     ACQA No. 933 of 2024

1 - Deenanath Naiyar (Wrongly Mentioned Aiyar In The
Impugned Order) S/o Kuldeep Singh Naiyar, Aged About 47
Years R/o Plot No. 1 And 2, Road No. 17, Pragatinagar Bhilai,
Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
                                                      ... Appellant(s)
                             versus
1 - Akhilesh Purohit S/o Hridesh Purohit, Aged About 45 Years
R/o C-85, Aakansha Kunj, Near Maitrikunj Risali Bhilai, Tahsil
And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
                                                  ... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Ms. Surbhi Yadav, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent : None

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board

16/09/2025

1. This acquittal appeal U/s 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment dated 12.04.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.) in Case No. RCC/4082/2015 whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

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"). She 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 of 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. In view of the aforesaid submission 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 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 matter in accordance with law.

4. Registry shall return the certified copy of the impugned judgment/order and relevant documents to counsel for the appellant after retaining photocopy of the same.

5. The record be sent back forthwith to the concerned Court.

Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai