Disposed¶27

Rajendra Sahu v. Ramkhilawan

Chhattisgarh HC6 Aug 2025ACQA/188/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

ACQA No. 188 of 2023, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Sanjay S. Agrawal, J., 07/08/2025): withdrawal of Section 378(4) CrPC appeal by complainant against Section 138 NI Act acquittal (JMFC Manendragarh, Criminal Case No.427/2021, dated 09/12/2022), with liberty to file afresh under proviso to Section 372 CrPC / Section 413 BNSS 2023 before the Sessions Judge within 30 days; limitation not to be insisted upon; relies on Celestium Financial, 2025 INSC 804; appeal disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to prefer a fresh appeal against the acquittal before the concerned Sessions Judge within 30 days, with limitation not to be insisted upon; Registry to return certified copy of the impugned judgment and remit the record. ¶27

Rajendra Sahu Vs Ramkhilawan — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant/complainant may be permitted to withdraw the appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. with liberty to prefer a fresh appeal against the acquittal before the concerned Sessions Judge under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., without limitation being insisted upon.

¶20

Court's answer

In the light of the submissions and considering the law declared by the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial (2025 INSC 804), the Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Liberty granted to the appellant to prefer an appeal against the impugned acquittal judgment dated 09/12/2022 in Criminal Case No.427/2021 before the concerned Sessions Judge within 30 days from receipt of copy of the order.

¶24

Key takeaways

Clarified that if such an appeal is preferred before the concerned Sessions Judge within the time given, the Court would not insist upon limitation and would decide it in accordance with law.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal (ACQA) under Section 378(4) CrPC by the complainant against acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh, Criminal Case No.427/2021, judgment dated 09/12/2022). Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804 (right to appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, corresponding to Section 413 BNSS 2023), the High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal with liberty to prefer an appeal before the concerned Sessions Judge within 30 days from receipt of the order's copy, clarified that limitation would not be insisted upon, and disposed of the appeal; Registry directed to return certified copies and remit the record.

2025:CGHC:39486

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

ACQA No. 188 of 2023

¶6

CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN

¶7

Rajendra Sahu S/o Shri Mulchand Sahu, Aged About 29 Years, Occupation Medical And Garment Store, R/o Village Banganwa, Newrajnagar, Post Bangawan. P.S. Ramnangar, Tehsil Kotma, District Anuppur (M.P.)

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.07 16:53:06 +0530

¶10

versus

¶11

Ramkhilawan S/o Shri Gogal Prasad, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Village Banganwa, Newrajnagar, Post Bangawan, P.S. Ramnangar, Tehsil Kotma, District Anuppur (M.P.) Currently Residing In Village Kacharwar, Post Bandavgarh, P.S. And Tehsil Umaria, District (M.P.)

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Appellant : Mr. Pritee Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Adil Minhaj, Advocate.

¶14

SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

¶15

Judgment on Board

¶16

07/08/2025

¶17

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 09/12/2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.427/2021, whereby, the Respondent/accused

¶18

¶19

has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

¶20

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.

¶21

3 ) Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in case an appeal is filed, the respondent will not insist upon the limitation.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

granting him liberty to prefer the appeal against the impugned judgment dated 09/12/2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.427/2021, before the concerned Sessions Judge within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Order accordingly.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

7 ) Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

¶28

Sd/- ( Sanjay S. Agrawal ) JUDGE

¶29

Chandrakant

Rajendra Sahu v. Ramkhilawan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Sahu v. Ramkhilawan

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

Smt. Hemin Bai, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Shanti Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Rahul Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shanti Kiraya Bhandar Vs Dr. Roshan Mishra

Nemnath Yogi Vs Yashwant Chandravanshi

Ramesh Gangwani Vs Tejnath Thakur