Suryakant Soni Vs Ravi Chandravanshi — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

Suryakant Soni Vs Ravi Chandravanshi — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to withdraw the appeal and to prefer an appeal against the acquittal judgment dated 17.10.2022 before the concerned Sessions Judge within 30 days from receipt of copy of the order, without insistence on limitation if filed within that time; Registry directed to return the certified copy of the impugned judgment and documents to counsel and remit the record to the concerned Court forthwith.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant/complainant, whose appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC against acquittal under Section 138 NI Act is pending, may be permitted to withdraw it with liberty to prefer an appeal before the concerned Sessions Judge under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC (corresponding to Section 413 BNSS 2023). +1 more

Court's answer

Considering the law declared by the Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804), the Court permitted the appellant to withdraw this appeal with liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned acquittal judgment dated 17.10.2022 (Complaint Case No.341/2018, JMFC Pandariya) before the concerned Sessions Judge within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

Ratio / Principle

Clarified that if such an appeal is preferred before the concerned Sessions Judge within the time given by this Court, limitation would not be insisted upon while deciding the same, and the appeal will be decided in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, ACQA No.40 of 2023 (Single Bench: Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.), decided 04.08.2025: Appeal by complainant under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against acquittal dated 17.10.2022 passed by the JMFC, Pandariya (Complaint Case No.341/2018) of the respondent/accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 — relying on the law declared in M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804 (Supreme Court, 08.04.2025), the appellant was permitted to withdraw the appeal with liberty to prefer an appeal against the acquittal before the concerned Sessions Judge under the 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; limitation not to be insisted upon if the appeal is filed within that time; appeal disposed of; Registry to return certified copies and remit the record.

1

2025:CGHC:38508

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

ACQA No.40 of 2023

Suryakant Soni S/o Lalaram Aged About 30 Years (Now 34 Years), R/o Pandatarai P.S. Pandatarai, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

...Appellant/Complainant

versus

Ravi Chandravanshi S/o Baldau Chandravanshi, Aged About 31 Years (Now 35 Years), R/o Gandaikhurd, P.S. Pandatarai, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Shri R. B. Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal

Judgment on Board

04/08/2025

SATISH TUMANE

Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2025.08.05 10:59:43 +0530

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 17.10.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pandariya, District Kabirdham (CG) in Complaint Case No.341/2018, whereby, the Respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

2 ) At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that recently in the judgment dated 08/04/2025 rendered by

2

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.

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 17.10.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pandariya, District Kabirdham (CG) in Complaint Case No.341/2018, before the concerned Sessions Judge within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Order accordingly.

3

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.

5 ) 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.

6 ) Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

SD/- ( Sanjay S. Agrawal ) JUDGE

Tumane