Disposed¶26

Suresh Kumar Murarka v. Ramesh Jain

Chhattisgarh HC3 Aug 2025ACQA/226/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suresh Kumar Murarka v. Ramesh Jain, ACQA No. 226 of 2022, Chhattisgarh HC, 04/08/2025 (2025:CGHC:38455), Sanjay S. Agrawal J. Complainant's appeal u/S 378(4) CrPC against S. 138 NI Act acquittal (30/01/2018, CC No.10487/15, JMFC Bilaspur) permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file appeal under proviso to S. 372 CrPC / S. 413 BNSS 2023 before Sessions Judge within 30 days; limitation not to be pressed; reliance on Celestium Financial, 2025 INSC 804; appeal disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the appellant to withdraw the appeal and file a fresh appeal against the acquittal before the concerned Sessions Judge under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. within 30 days of receipt of a copy of the order, with the Sessions Court directed not to insist upon limitation; certified copies to be returned and record remitted. ¶26

Suresh Kumar Murarka Vs Ramesh Jain — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant/complainant may be permitted to withdraw the present appeal with liberty to prefer an appeal before the concerned Sessions Judge under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., without limitation being insisted upon.

¶21

Court's answer

The Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal and granted him liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned acquittal judgment dated 30/01/2018 in Criminal Case No.10487/15 before the concerned Sessions Judge within 30 days from receipt of a copy of the order.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

If such an appeal is preferred before the concerned Sessions Judge within the time given by this Court, that Court would not insist upon the limitation while deciding the appeal and will proceed to decide it in accordance with law.

¶24

Key takeaways

The Registry was directed to return the certified copy of the impugned judgment and relevant documents to counsel for the appellant and to remit the record to the concerned Court forthwith.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), ACQA No. 226 of 2022, decided 04/08/2025 by Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. Appeal by the complainant under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against acquittal dated 30/01/2018 of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 in Criminal Case No.10487/15 (JMFC, Bilaspur). On the basis of the law declared by the Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804, regarding the victim's right to appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 413 BNSS, 2023), the Court permitted withdrawal of the appeal with liberty to file a fresh appeal before the Sessions Judge within 30 days, directing that limitation not be insisted upon; the appeal was disposed of and the record ordered to be remitted.

2025:CGHC:38455

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

ACQA No. 226 of 2022

¶6

Suresh Kumar Murarka S/o Late Nathal Murarka Aged About 52 Years OfficeCum-Residence A- 9, Minocha Colony, Mungeliroad, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

Digitally signed by PRASHANT PRASHANT DEWANGAN DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.05 10:34:20 +0530

¶9

versus

¶10

Ramesh Jain Partner Through Tulsi Construction Company Office-CumResidence A 28, Rama Lifecity In- Front Of Jain International Public School Mungeli Road, Sakri, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

For Appellant : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate

¶13

SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

¶14

Judgment on Board

¶15

04/08/2025

¶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 30/01/2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.10487/15, whereby, the Respondent/accused has been

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

granting him liberty to prefer the appeal against the impugned judgment dated 30/01/2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.10487/15, before the concerned Sessions Judge within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Order accordingly.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

7 ) Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

( Sanjay S. Agrawal ) JUDGE

¶29

Prashant

Suresh Kumar Murarka v. Ramesh Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar Murarka v. Ramesh Jain

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

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Ltd. Vs Budhram Singh Shyam

Gopal Sinha Vs Smt. D. Laxmirao

Iqbal Singh Budhreja Vs Hasanand Kodwani

Suryakant Soni Vs Ravi Chandravanshi

Sunil Khande Vs Dhawal Agarwal

Ishwarilal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh