Rajesh Gupta v. Mulla Akbar Ali

Chhattisgarh HC7 Aug 2025ACQA/106/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; ACQA No. 106 of 2023; withdrawal of appeal under S.378(4) CrPC against acquittal under S.138 NI Act; liberty to file fresh appeal under proviso to S.372 CrPC / S.413 BNSS 2023 before Sessions Judge within 30 days; limitation not to be insisted upon; reliance on M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804; single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal; appeal disposed of on 08/08/2025.

What did the court decide?

Appeal permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to prefer an appeal against the acquittal judgment dated 12/12/2022 before the concerned Sessions Judge within 30 days; the Sessions Court directed not to insist upon limitation; Registry to return certified copies to counsel and remit the record to the concerned Court forthwith. ¶¶23

Rajesh Gupta Vs Mulla Akbar Ali — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant/complainant may be permitted to withdraw the present appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC, with liberty to prefer an appeal against the acquittal before the concerned Sessions Judge under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC (corresponding to Section 413 BNSS, 2023), in view of the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Celestium Financial. +1 more

¶¶18

Court's answer

Considering the law declared by the Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial (2025 INSC 804), the Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal with liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned acquittal judgment dated 12/12/2022 before the concerned Sessions Judge within 30 days from receipt of a copy of the order.

¶¶19

Ratio / Principle

If such an appeal is preferred before the concerned Sessions Judge within the time given by the Court, the limitation shall not be insisted upon and the appeal shall be decided in accordance with law.

¶¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the complainant against the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (judgment dated 12/12/2022, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh, Criminal Case No.93/2020). Relying on the Supreme Court decision in M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804 (dated 08/04/2025) on the right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., the High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal with liberty to prefer an appeal against the acquittal before the concerned Sessions Judge within 30 days, clarifying that limitation shall not be insisted upon; the Registry was directed to return certified copies and remit the record; the appeal was disposed of.

2025:CGHC:39835

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

ACQA No. 106 of 2023

¶6

Rajesh Gupta, S/o. Late Bharose Lal Gupta, Aged About 47 Years R/o. Opp. Ram Mandir, Uma Shakti Complex, Manendragarh, District - Koriya, Chhattisgarh, Presentlly R/o. House No Al - 87, Mai Chowk Near K.P.S. School, Ashma City - Phase -Ii, Sakri, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

Mulla Akbar Ali S/o. Mulla Fakhuddhin, Aged About 56 Years R/o. Near Badaka Hotel, Sarover Marg, Pinjara Factory, Manendragarh, District - Koriya (C.G.)

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Appellant : Shri Hemant Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent : None.

¶12

S.B: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

¶13

Judgment on Board

¶14

08/08/2025

¶15

NARESHKUMARKAMDE Digitally signedby NARESHKUMAR KAMDEDate:2025.08.0817:30:04 +0530

¶16

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 12/12/2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.93/2020, whereby, the Respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

¶17

¶18

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.

¶19

3 ) 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 12/12/2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.93/2020, before the concerned Sessions Judge within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Order accordingly.

¶20

¶21

4 ) 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.

¶22

5 ) 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.

¶23

6 ) Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

( Sanjay S. Agrawal ) JUDGE

¶26

Kamde

Rajesh Gupta v. Mulla Akbar Ali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Gupta v. Mulla Akbar Ali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shanti Kiraya Bhandar Vs Dr. Roshan Mishra

Nemnath Yogi Vs Yashwant Chandravanshi

Ramesh Gangwani Vs Tejnath Thakur

Himanshu Chandrawanshi Vs Surendra Kumar Sahu

Harsh Chitlangia Vs Subodh Rajan @ Veerbhadra Shah

Bhanupratap Sahu Vs Mohit Kumar Dewangan