Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Prem Chandrakar Vs Ramdayal Verma — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

Home
Chhattisgarh HC
2025
Prem Chandrakar Vs Ramdayal VermaPrem Chandrakar v. Ramdayal Verma

Disposed¶19

Prem Chandrakar v. Ramdayal Verma

Chhattisgarh HC14 Oct 2025ACQA/334/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; ACQA No. 334 of 2024; decided 15/10/2025 by Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal. Complainant Prem Chandrakar's appeal against acquittal of accused Ramdayal Verma under Section 138 NI Act (JMFC Mahasamund, Complaint Case No. 2407/2021, judgment dated 08.04.2024). Appeal disposed of relying on Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804 (complainant as 'victim', appeal under proviso to S. 372 CrPC / S. 413 BNSS); liberty to file fresh appeal within 60 days without limitation bar. Statutes: S. 378(4) CrPC, S. 138 NI Act, S. 2(wa) CrPC, S. 2(y) BNSS 2023, proviso S. 372 CrPC, S. 413 BNSS.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the appellant to file an appeal before the appropriate Court within 60 days of the order; the concerned Court directed not to insist upon limitation if the appeal is filed within that period.

Why is it important?

In view of the appellant's submission and considering the law declared in Celestium Financial (supra), the acquittal appeal stands disposed of, reserving liberty in favour of the appellant to file an appeal within a period of 60 days from the order before the appropriate Court, in accordance with law. ¶19

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty reserved to the appellant to file an appeal before the appropriate Court within 60 days of the order; the concerned Court directed not to insist upon limitation if the appeal is filed within that period.

Issue for consideration

Whether, in light of the law declared in Celestium Financial (supra) that a complainant under Section 138 NI Act is a 'victim' entitled to appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC, this acquittal appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC should be disposed of reserving liberty to avail that remedy.

Court's answer

In view of the appellant's submission and considering the law declared in Celestium Financial (supra), the acquittal appeal stands disposed of, reserving liberty in favour of the appellant to file an appeal within a period of 60 days from the order before the appropriate Court, in accordance with law.

Ratio / Principle

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

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Acquittal appeal under S. 378(4) Cr.P.C. by the complainant against the JMFC Mahasamund judgment dated 08.04.2024 acquitting the accused of the offence under S. 138 N.I. Act (Complaint Case No. 2407/2021). Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804, that a complainant in a Section 138 complaint is a 'victim' under S. 2(wa) Cr.P.C. (corresponding to S. 2(y) BNSS) entitled to appeal under proviso to S. 372 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to S. 413 BNSS), the High Court disposed of the appeal, reserving liberty to the appellant to file a fresh appeal within 60 days, with a direction that limitation shall not be insisted upon for such appeal.

A

1

2025:CGHC:51431

Digitally signed by SOURABH SOURABH PATEL PATEL Date: 2025.10.15 16:50:17 +0530

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 334 of 2024

1 - Prem Chandrakar S/o Shri Makhan Lal Chandrakar, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Clubpara Behind Gayatri Mandir Mahasamund, Thana And Tahsil - Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

... Appellant

versus

1 - Ramdayal Verma S/o Shri Vedram Verma, Aged About 65 Years, Occupation - Retd Cspdcl Employee, R/o Behind Collector Office Ahata Mahasanund, Thana Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Judgment on Board

15/10/2025

1. This acquittal appeal U/s 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) in Complaint Case No. 2407/2021 whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted for the commission of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that

2

recently the Supreme Court has delivered a judgment in the matter of M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. reported in 2025 INSC 804 holding that the complainant in a complaint filed under section 138 of the Act of 1881 is also a victim as defined in section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 2(y) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNSS”). He submits that the Supreme Court has further held that the complainant in a complaint under section 138 of the Act of 1881 can also be entitled to file an appeal under proviso to section 372 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 413 of the BNSS. Learned counsel submits that the case may be disposed of reserving liberty so as to avail the said remedy.

3. In view of the aforesaid submission and considering the law declared in the matter of Celestium Financial (supra), this Appeal stands disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the appellant to file an appeal within a period of 60 days from this order before the appropriate Court, in accordance with law. It is further made clear that if such an appeal is filed before the concerned Court 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.

4. Registry shall return the certified copy of the impugned judgment/order and relevant documents to counsel for the appellant after retaining the photocopy of the same.

5. Registry shall send back the record to the concerned Court.

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

Sourabh P.

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether, in light of the law declared in Celestium Financial (supra) that a complainant under Section 138 NI Act is a 'victim' entitled to appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC, this acquittal appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC should be disposed of reserving liberty to avail that remedy.medium confidence¶18
The court held
In view of the appellant's submission and considering the law declared in Celestium Financial (supra), the acquittal appeal stands disposed of, reserving liberty in favour of the appellant to file an appeal within a period of 60 days from the order before the appropriate Court, in accordance with law.ratio¶19

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.Relied on¶18
M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. reported in 2025 INSC 804 · Who else cites this

Statutes considered

7 provisions across 5 enactments

AI extract

Cr.P.C.378(4)¶15 2(wa)¶18 372 (proviso)¶18
N.I. Act138¶15
Act of 1881138¶18
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20232(y)¶18
BNSS

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment dated 08.04.2024 of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund, acquitting the respondent/accused of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in Complaint Case No. 2407/2021.¶15
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) · 08.04.2024
Prior proceeding
Trial of Complaint Case No. 2407/2021 ended in acquittal of the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.¶15

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
Prem Chandrakar¶6
Sunil Sahu
respondent
Ramdayal Verma¶9
Raghvendra Pradhan

Coram

AI extract

Sanjay Kumar Jaiswalauthor¶12

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Chhattisgarh HC
Decided on: 14 Oct 2025 · October
Registered: 27 Jun 2024
Case no.: ACQA/334/2024
CNR: CGHC010213982024
Topic: Cheque Dishonour
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Case type: ACQA

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Kartik Ram Patel Vs Radheshyam Patel
13 Oct 2025
Goverdhan Lal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh
13 Oct 2025
State of Chhattisgarh Vs Rupendra Behra
13 Oct 2025
Suresh Kumar Kosti Vs State Of Chhattisgarh
14 Oct 2025
State of Chhattisgarh Vs Gandhulal Dewangan
14 Oct 2025
State of Chhattisgarh Vs Surendra Patel
14 Oct 2025

Cite this judgement

Prem Chandrakar v. Ramdayal Verma, ACQA/334/2024 (CG), decided on 14 October 2025.

The High Court of Chhattisgarh publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited1

M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.Relied on¶18

Open Authorities

Statutes7

Cr.P.C.378(4) · 2(wa) · 372 (proviso)
N.I. Act138
Act of 1881138
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20232(y)

View all statutes

Procedural history2

Judgment dated 08.04.2024 of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund, acquitting the respondent/accused of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in Complaint Case No. 2407/2021.Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) · 08.04.2024
Trial of Complaint Case No. 2407/2021 ended in acquittal of the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Parties & counsel