Randeep Singh Bhatia v. Hitesh Raicha

Chhattisgarh HC6 Oct 2025ACQA/110/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court disposes of a Section 138 NI Act acquittal appeal filed under Section 419(4) BNSS (ACQA No. 110 of 2025), acting on counsel's reliance on Celestium Financial, 2025 INSC 804 (complainant under Section 138 complaint is a victim entitled to appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. / Section 413 BNSS); liberty reserved to file appeal within 60 days; limitation not to be insisted upon if filed within that time; certified copies to be returned and record sent back.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of with liberty reserved to the appellant to file an appeal within 60 days before the appropriate Court; if filed within that period, limitation is not to be insisted upon; Registry directed to return certified copy of impugned judgment/documents to counsel and send the record back to the concerned Court. ¶¶18

Randeep Singh Bhatia Vs Hitesh Raicha — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether this acquittal appeal under Section 419(4) BNSS should be disposed of, with liberty to the appellant/complainant to instead pursue the remedy of an appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. / Section 413 BNSS in light of the law declared in Celestium Financial (2025 INSC 804).

¶¶18

Court's answer

In view of the submission of learned counsel and the law declared in Celestium Financial (supra), the acquittal appeal stands disposed of, with liberty reserved to the appellant to file an appeal within a period of 60 days from the order before the appropriate Court, in accordance with law.

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

If the appeal is filed before the concerned Court within the 60-day period given by this Court, that Court will not insist upon limitation and will proceed to decide the appeal in accordance with law.

¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ACQA No. 110 of 2025 (High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.; 07/10/2025): Acquittal appeal under Section 419(4) BNSS by complainant Randeep Singh Bhatia against the judgment dated 28.10.2024 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon acquitting Hitesh Raicha under Section 138 of the N.I. Act (Criminal Complaint Case No. 3535/2018). Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804, that a complainant in a Section 138 complaint is a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 2(y) BNSS and may appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 413 BNSS, and sought disposal with liberty to avail that remedy. Considering the law declared in Celestium Financial (supra), the Court disposed of the appeal, reserving liberty to the appellant to file an appeal within 60 days before the appropriate Court, and made clear that if the appeal is filed within that period the concerned Court will not insist upon limitation and will decide it in accordance with law. Registry directed to return certified copies to counsel and send the record back to the concerned Court.

¶1

Digitally signed by SOURABH SOURABH PATEL PATEL Date: 2025.10.07 17:19:56 +0530

¶2

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 110 of 2025

¶5

1 - Randeep Singh Bhatia S/o Shri Harjinder Singh Bhatia, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Housing Board Colony, Lalbagh, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - Hitesh Raicha S/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Raicha, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Flat No. 301, Swapnil Shivali Apartment, Near Das Jewelers, Shankar Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra. Presently R/o House No. G-3, Nx Sun City Colony, Beside D-Mart, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

For Appellant : Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocate. For Respondent : None.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶12

Judgment on Board

¶13

07/10/2025

¶14

1. This acquittal appeal U/s 419(4) of the BNSS has been filed against the judgment dated 28.10.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Criminal Complaint Case No. 3535/2018 whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted for the commission of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

¶15

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that

¶16

¶17

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.

¶18

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 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.

¶19

4. 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.

¶20

5. Registry shall send back the record to the concerned Court.

¶21

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶22

Sourabh P.

Randeep Singh Bhatia v. Hitesh Raicha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Randeep Singh Bhatia v. Hitesh Raicha

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

Mohd. Rashid Jamal Vs M/S Pragati Engineering

Anurag Agrawal Vs Leena Thakur

Sanjay Joshi Vs Ram Pratap

T. Davarkanath Naidu Vs Krishn Kumar Sahu

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Ratan Ram Rajwade

Rameshwar Prasad Sahu Vs Abha Sahu