Disposed¶20

Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Gyanendra Harmukh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Sept 2025ACQA/36/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court ACQA 36/2020 acquittal appeal by complainant Ashok Kumar Sharma against acquittal of Gyanendra Harmukh under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (RCC 29243/2011, JMFC Durg, 30.11.2019); disposed of relying on Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804 (08.04.2025) regarding victim's appeal against acquittal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.; liberty to file appeal within 45 days; limitation not to be insisted upon.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of; liberty reserved to the appellant to file an appeal within 45 days before the appropriate Court, with no insistence on limitation if filed within that time; Registry directed to return the certified copy of the impugned judgment/order and documents to counsel and to send the record back to the concerned Court. ¶20

Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs Gyanendra Harmukh — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether, in light of the law declared in Celestium Financial (victim's right to prefer an appeal against acquittal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.), this acquittal appeal should be disposed of reserving liberty to the appellant to pursue that remedy, with protection from limitation if the fresh appeal is filed within the time fixed.

¶19

Court's answer

Considering the law declared in Celestium Financial (supra), the acquittal appeal stands disposed of reserving liberty to the appellant to file an appeal before the appropriate Court within 45 days from this order, in accordance with law.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

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

¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Acquittal Appeal (ACQA No. 36 of 2020, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.; 09/09/2025): Filed by the complainant against the judgment dated 30.11.2019 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg C.G. in RCC No.29243/2011 acquitting the accused of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. On counsel's submission invoking Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804 (Supreme Court, 08.04.2025) on the victim's right to appeal against acquittal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., the Court disposed of the appeal reserving liberty to the appellant to file an appeal before the appropriate Court within 45 days, directing that limitation shall not be insisted upon if the appeal is filed within that time; Registry to return certified copies and send the record back.

¶1

¶2

2025:CGHC:45761

¶3

Digitally signed by AVINASH AVINASH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.09 14:11:34 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

ACQA No. 36 of 2020

¶7

1 - Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Manohar Lal Sharma, Aged About 55 Years R/o Shanichari Bazar Durg, Police Station Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (complainant).

¶8

...Appellant.

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Gyanendra Harmukh S/o Kamta Harmukh Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Temari, Police Station Pulgaon, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh (accused).

¶11

... Respondent(s)

¶12

For Appellant : Shri Jitendra Gupta, Advocate.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

¶14

Judgment On Board

¶15

09/09/2025

¶16

This Acquittal Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30.11.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg C.G. in RCC No.29243/2011 whereby, respondent/accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶17

At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that recently in the judgment dated 08.04.2025 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804, right to file appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. was

¶18

¶19

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 submits that the case may be disposed of reserving liberty so as to avail the said remedy.

¶20

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 45 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

Registry shall send back the record to the concerned Court.

¶23

Accordingly, this Appeal is disposed of .

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶26

Avinash

Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Gyanendra Harmukh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Gyanendra Harmukh

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

Khokshi @ Somnath Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/s Swastik Wires Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

M/S Swastik Wires Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mangali Bai Vs Sakharam

Ram Das Agrawal (Died and Deleted) Through LRs. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Harishchandra Tandon Vs Salim Khan