Disposed¶6

Nirmal Chand Kothari v. Kulendra Sharma

Chhattisgarh HC12 Aug 2025ACQA/156/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

ACQA 156/2019; Chhattisgarh High Court; acquittal appeal; Section 138 NI Act; Complaint Case No.2513/2014; JMFC Rajnandgaon; acquittal dated 27.08.2018; Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran 2025 INSC 804; proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.; victim's right to appeal against acquittal; liberty to file appeal within 45 days; limitation not to be insisted; Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari; disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of without deciding merits; liberty reserved to the appellant to file an appeal before the appropriate Court within 45 days from the date of this order, with the further direction that limitation shall not be insisted upon if the appeal is filed within that period. ¶6

Nirmal Chand Kothari Vs Kulendra Sharma — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the law declared in Celestium Financial (2025 INSC 804) on the victim's/complainant's right to appeal against an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., this acquittal appeal should be disposed of reserving liberty to the appellant to avail that remedy instead of being decided on merits.

¶2

Court's answer

Considering the law declared in Celestium Financial (supra) and counsel's submission, the acquittal appeal stands disposed of, reserving liberty to the appellant to file an appeal before the appropriate Court within 45 days from the date of this order, in accordance with law.

¶3

Ratio / Principle

If such an appeal is filed before the concerned Court within the time given by this Court, that Court shall not insist upon limitation and shall proceed to decide the appeal in accordance with law.

¶3

Key takeaways

Administrative directions: the Registry shall return the certified copy of the order/judgment and relevant documents to counsel for the appellant after retaining photocopy, and shall send back the record to the concerned Court.obiter¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Acquittal Appeal (ACQA No. 156 of 2019, High Court of Chhattisgarh, decided 13.08.2025, Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari): The appellant-complainant challenged the acquittal dated 27.08.2018 of the respondent-accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon in Complaint Case No.2513/2014. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804 (recognising the victim's right under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. to appeal against an acquittal before the Court to which an appeal against conviction would lie), the Court disposed of the appeal without adjudicating merits, reserving liberty to the appellant to file an appeal before the appropriate Court within 45 days, and directed that limitation shall not be insisted upon if the appeal is filed within that period. Registry ordered to return certified copy/documents and send the record back to the trial Court.

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=CHATTISGARH, c=IN Date: 2025.08.13 16:52:35 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:40702

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

ACQA No. 156 of 2019

¶7

Nirmal Chand Kothari S/o Umed Chand Kothari Aged About 46 Years R/o Kamthi Line, In Front Of State Bank, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Appellant.

¶9

Versus

¶10

Kulendra Sharma S/o Dwarika Prasad Sharma Aged About 32 Years R/o Laxmi Foot Wear, In Front Of Old Bus Stand, Police Station- Dongargaon, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Respondent.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr. Khilendra Sahu, Adv on behalf of Mr. S. S. Baghel, Advocate. For Respondent : None.

¶13

SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

¶14

Judgment on Board

¶15

13.08.2025

¶16

The appellant has filed this acquittal appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 27.08.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon in Complaint Case No.2513/2014, whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “ the NI Act ”).

¶17

At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that recently in the judgment dated 08.04.2025 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804,

¶18

¶19

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. He submits that the case may be disposed of reserving liberty so as to avail the said remedy.

¶20

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 45 days from the date of 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.

¶21

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

¶22

Registry shall send back the record to the concerned Court.

¶23

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of .

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶26

Ajay/Avinash

Nirmal Chand Kothari v. Kulendra Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmal Chand Kothari v. Kulendra Sharma

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

Dr. Smt. Uma Ram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Kamlesh Dedhiya Vs Shri Nasir Khan

Smt. Kirti Kurian Vs Ajay Singh

M/S R. B. Construction and Co. Vs Narendra Shah

Sushil Kumar Sahu Vs Smt. Ful Bai Deep

Ramswaroop Yadu Vs Mangal Choudhary