Disposed¶24

Ganeshnath Yogi v. Yashwant Chandravanshi

Chhattisgarh HC12 Aug 2025ACQA/207/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of S.378(4) CrPC appeal against S.138 NI Act acquittal; liberty to refile under proviso to S.372 Cr.P.C. before Sessions Judge; S.413 BNSS 2023 counterpart; 30-day filing window; limitation waived/not insisted; reliance on Celestium Financial, 2025 INSC 804 (08/04/2025); impugned acquittal dated 19/03/2021 by JMFC Kawardha in Criminal Case No.949/2017; appellant Ganeshnath Yogi (complainant); respondent Yashwant Chandravanshi (accused); Kabirdham; appeal disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to withdraw the present appeal and file a fresh appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. before the concerned Sessions Judge within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order, with limitation not to be insisted upon; Registry directed to return certified copy/documents to counsel and remit the record to the concerned Court.

Ganeshnath Yogi Vs Yashwant Chandravanshi — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant 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 proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 413 BNSS, 2023). +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

Considering the law declared by the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial (2025 INSC 804), the Court permitted the appellant to withdraw this appeal, granting him liberty to prefer the appeal against the impugned acquittal judgment before the concerned Sessions Judge.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The fresh appeal against the acquittal is to be filed before the concerned Sessions Judge within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶21

Key takeaways

If such appeal is preferred before the concerned Session Judge within the time given, the Court/forum will not insist upon limitation while deciding it and will proceed to decide it in accordance with law.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.), ACQA No. 207 of 2023, decided 13/08/2025: Complainant's appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC against acquittal (19/03/2021, JMFC Kawardha, Criminal Case No.949/2017) of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 was disposed of by permitting withdrawal of the appeal. Relying on M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804 (judgment dated 08/04/2025), the appellant was granted liberty to prefer a fresh appeal before the concerned Sessions Judge under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) within 30 days of receipt of copy of the order, and it was clarified that limitation would not be insisted upon in deciding such appeal. Registry directed to return certified documents and remit the record forthwith.

2025:CGHC:40782

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

ACQA No. 207 of 2023

¶6

Ganeshnath Yogi, S/o Hazarinath Yogi, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Darripara, Kawardha, Police Station Kawardha, Tahsil Kawardha, District : Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

Yashwant Chandravanshi, S/o Kisunram Chandravanshi, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Paliguda, Police Station Pipariya, Tahsil Kawardha, District : Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Appellant : Ms. Gangotri Kaiwart, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate.

¶12

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

¶13

Judgment on Board

¶14

13/08/2025

¶15

1 ) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the NARESHKUMARKAMDE Digitally signedby NARESHKUMARKAMDEDate:2025.08.1316:42:36 +0530 judgment of acquittal dated 19/03/2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Kawardha, District Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.949/2017, whereby, the Respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

¶16

¶17

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. She further submits that the limitation may not come in the way while deciding the appeal on its merits.

¶18

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

¶19

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 19/03/2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Kawardha, District Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.949/2017,

¶20

¶21

before the concerned Sessions Judge within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Order accordingly.

¶22

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.

¶23

6 ) 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.

¶24

7 ) Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

( Sanjay S. Agrawal ) JUDGE

¶27

Kamde

Ganeshnath Yogi v. Yashwant Chandravanshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganeshnath Yogi v. Yashwant Chandravanshi

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

Sheela Vatyani Vs M/S Sai Sales

Ravi Vs Fruit and Fruit

Dhirendra Rao Jachak Vs Smt Anita Ghatge

Keshav Nandan Vs Nakul Das Manikpuri

Rajendra Singh Vs Prakash Chandra Verma (Lodhi)

The State of Chhattisgarh Vs Krishna Singh Gond