Disposed¶21

Mahindra Tractors Agency v. Sukhraj Singh Sandilya

Chhattisgarh HC5 Aug 2025ACQA/59/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court acquittal appeal disposed of reserving liberty; Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804 relied upon; proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.; Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; acquittal dated 29.06.2019 by JMFC Raigarh in Complaint Case No.7/2013; 45-day window with limitation concession; Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari (SB); ACQA No. 59 of 2020; decision date 06.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of reserving liberty to the appellant to file an appeal within 45 days before the appropriate Court, with a direction that limitation not be insisted upon if filed within that time; Registry directed to return the certified copy of the order/judgment and documents to counsel for the appellant and to send the record back to the concerned Court. ¶21

Mahindra Tractors Agency Vs Sukhraj Singh Sandilya — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of Celestium Financial (2025 INSC 804) recognising the victim's right to prefer an appeal against an acquittal order under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., the present acquittal appeal should be disposed of reserving liberty to the appellant to avail that remedy.

¶19

Court's answer

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 45 days from the date of this order before the appropriate Court, in accordance with law.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

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

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Acquittal appeal (ACQA No. 59 of 2020, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Single Bench, Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari) by the complainant against the judgment of acquittal dated 29.06.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh in Complaint Case No.7/2013 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was disposed of at the outset without adjudicating the merits. Relying on the law declared in Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804 (Supreme Court, judgment dated 08.04.2025) on the victim's right to prefer an appeal against an acquittal order under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., the Court reserved liberty to the appellant to file an appeal within 45 days before the appropriate Court and directed that, if filed within that time, limitation would not be insisted upon.

¶1

¶2

2025:CGHC:38999

¶3

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=CHATTISGARH, c=IN Date: 2025.08.07 11:07:54 +0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

NAFR

¶6

ACQA No. 59 of 2020

¶7

Mahindra Tractors Agency Proprietor Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Danipara Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Appellant.

¶9

versus

¶10

Sukhraj Singh Sandilya S/o Sudhir Singh Sandilya Aged About 54 Years Resident Of Village Mendhari Post Karamdiha Tehsil Wadrafnagar District Sarguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Respondent.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Adv on behalf of Mr. Priyank Rathi, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate.

¶13

SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

¶14

Judgment on Board

¶15

06.08.2025

¶16

The appellant has filed this acquittal appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 29.06.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh in Complaint Case No.7/2013, whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “ the NI Act ”).

¶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

¶18

¶19

matter of Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 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. He submits that the case may be disposed of reserving liberty so as to avail the said remedy.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondent would not oppose the aforesaid submission.

¶21

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 the date of 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.

¶22