Rajkumar v. Diken @ Dikendra Sahu

Chhattisgarh HC13 Aug 2025ACQA/330/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of complainant's appeal under S.378(4) CrPC against acquittal in S.138 NI Act case; liberty to file fresh appeal before Sessions Judge under proviso to S.372 CrPC / S.413 BNSS 2023 within 30 days; limitation not to be insisted upon; relies on Celestium Financial v. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804); High Court of Chhattisgarh, ACQA 330/2023, Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of; appellant permitted to withdraw with liberty to file a fresh appeal against the acquittal judgment dated 02/09/2023 before the concerned Sessions Judge within 30 days, limitation not to be insisted upon; Registry directed to return certified copy of impugned judgment and documents to counsel for the appellant and remit the record to the concerned Court. ¶¶25

Rajkumar Vs Diken @ Dikendra Sahu — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant/complainant may be permitted to withdraw this appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. 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), and whether limitation should come in the way of deciding such appeal on its merits.

¶¶19

Court's answer

The Court permitted the appellant to withdraw this appeal with liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned acquittal judgment dated 02/09/2023 before the concerned Sessions Judge within 30 days from receipt of copy of this order.

¶¶22

Ratio / Principle

It was clarified that if such an appeal is preferred before the concerned Sessions Judge within the time granted, limitation would not be insisted upon while deciding it, and the appeal would be decided in accordance with law.

¶¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Single Bench, Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.) — ACQA No. 330 of 2023 (decided 14/08/2025): Complainant's appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (JMFC Durg, Criminal Case No.1672/2017, acquittal dated 02/09/2023). Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804 (08/04/2025) on the victim's right to appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., the Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal with liberty to prefer an appeal before the concerned Sessions Judge within 30 days, corresponding to Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, clarifying that limitation would not be insisted upon if filed within that period. Appeal disposed of; Registry to return certified copies and remit record.

2025:CGHC:41177

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

ACQA No. 330 of 2023

¶6

Rajkumar S/o Shri Motilal, Aged About 48 Years, R/o New Adarsh Nagar, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.). ….....(Complainant)

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN

¶9

Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.14 16:02:36 +0530

¶10

versus

¶11

Diken @ Dikendra Sahu S/o Shri Deenu Sahu, Aged About 20 Years, Presently R/o Village Parsada, Post Pahanda, P.S. Kumhari, District Durg (C.G.). ………....(Accused)

¶12

	... Respondent
For Appellant	: Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate.
For Respondent	: None

¶13

SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

¶14

Judgment on Board

¶15

14/08/2025

¶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 02/09/2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.1672/2017, 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 ) 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 02/09/2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First

¶21

¶22

Class, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.1672/2017, before the concerned Sessions Judge within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Order accordingly.

¶23

4 ) 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

5 ) 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

6 ) Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

¶26

Sd/- ( Sanjay S. Agrawal ) JUDGE

¶27

Chandrakant

Rajkumar v. Diken @ Dikendra Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar v. Diken @ Dikendra Sahu

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

Keshav Nandan Vs Nakul Das Manikpuri

Ganeshnath Yogi Vs Yashwant Chandravanshi

Rajendra Singh Vs Prakash Chandra Verma (Lodhi)

Sevakdas Manikpuri Vs Smt. Dashoda Manikpuri

Girdhari Lal Chandrakar Vs Manoj Singh

Nirmal Chand Kothari Vs Salim Akhtar