Disposed¶25

Dhirendra Rao Jachak v. Smt Anita Ghatge

Chhattisgarh HC11 Aug 2025ACQA/184/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; ACQA No. 184 of 2023; Dhirendra Rao Jachak v. Smt Anita Ghatge; S.138 NI Act acquittal appeal; withdrawal permitted with liberty to appeal under proviso to S.372 Cr.P.C. / S.413 BNSS 2023 before Sessions Judge within 30 days; limitation not insisted; reliance on M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804; Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal; decided 12/08/2025; appeal disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to prefer an appeal against the acquittal judgment dated 14/03/2022 before the concerned Sessions Judge within 30 days from receipt of copy of the order, with limitation not to be insisted upon; Registry to return certified copy/documents and remit the record. ¶25

Dhirendra Rao Jachak Vs Smt Anita Ghatge — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant/complainant, whose appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC against the acquittal is pending, may be permitted to withdraw this appeal with liberty to prefer an appeal before the concerned Sessions Judge under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 413 BNSS 2023), with limitation not to be insisted upon.

¶18

Court's answer

In view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804) on the right to appeal against an acquittal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., the Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal with liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned acquittal judgment dated 14/03/2022 before the concerned Sessions Judge within 30 days from receipt of copy of the order.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

It was clarified that if such an appeal is preferred before the concerned Sessions Judge within the time given by this Court, limitation would not be insisted upon and the appeal would be decided in accordance with law.

¶23

Key takeaways

Registry was directed to return the certified copy of the impugned judgment and relevant documents to counsel for the appellant after obtaining photocopies, and to remit the record to the concerned Court forthwith.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Appeal under S.378(4) CrPC by complainant against acquittal under S.138 NI Act (Criminal Case No.623/2020, JMFC Dhamtari, judgment dated 14/03/2022): relying on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804 (dated 08/04/2025) on the victim's right to prefer an appeal against acquittal under proviso to S.372 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to S.413 BNSS 2023), the High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file a fresh appeal before the concerned Sessions Judge within 30 days; the respondent's counsel did not insist on limitation, and the Court clarified that the Sessions Judge would likewise not insist on limitation while deciding such appeal in accordance with law. Registry directed to return certified copy/documents and remit record. Appeal disposed of (Single Bench, Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, 12/08/2025).

2025:CGHC:40487

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

ACQA No. 184 of 2023

¶6

Dhirendra Rao Jachak S/o Late Shankar Rao Jachak, Aged About 71 Years, R/o Marathapara Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.)

... Appellant

versus

CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN

Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.12 16:50:01 +0530

¶11

Smt Anita Ghatge W/o Shri Santosh Rao Ghatge, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Marathapara Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶12

For Appellant : Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate.

¶13

SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

¶14

Judgment on Board

¶15

12/08/2025

¶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 14/03/2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.623/2020, 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 ) Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in case an appeal is filed, the respondent will not insist upon the limitation.

¶20

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 14/03/2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First

¶21

¶22

Class, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.623/2020, before the concerned Sessions Judge within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Order accordingly.

¶23

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.

¶24

6 ) Registry shall return the certified copy of the impugned judgment and relevant documents to counsel for the appellant after obtaining the photocopy of the same and, shall remit the record to the concerned Court forthwith.

¶25

7 ) Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

¶26

Sd/- ( Sanjay S. Agrawal ) JUDGE

¶27

Chandrakant

Dhirendra Rao Jachak v. Smt Anita Ghatge

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhirendra Rao Jachak v. Smt Anita Ghatge

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

Acredit Distributor Pvt. Ltd. Vs Devtanu Chakrawarti

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Bhagirathi Sinha

Premshankar Sahu Vs Rajkumar Sahu

Sheela Vatyani Vs M/S Sai Sales

Ravi Vs Fruit and Fruit

Rampyare Vs Ramkishun