Disposed¶20

Chabindra Kumar Sahu v. Manoj Giri

Chhattisgarh HC5 Oct 2025ACQA/634/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; ACQA No. 634 of 2024; acquittal appeal under S.378(4) CrPC; Section 138 N.I. Act cheque dishonour acquittal; JMFC Korba Complaint Case No. 414/2014; Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804; victim under Section 2(wa) CrPC / Section 2(y) BNSS; appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC / Section 413 BNSS; liberty to file appeal within 60 days; limitation not to be insisted upon.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of with liberty reserved to the appellant to file an appropriate appeal before the appropriate Court within 60 days; limitation not to be insisted upon if filed within that period; Registry directed to return the certified copy of the impugned judgment/order and documents to counsel for the appellant (retaining photocopy) and to send the record back to the concerned Court.

Chabindra Kumar Sahu Vs Manoj Giri — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the pending acquittal appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC should be decided on merits or disposed of so that the appellant/complainant may avail the appeal remedy under proviso to Section 372 CrPC (corresponding to Section 413 BNSS) recognised in Celestium Financial.

¶20

Court's answer

In view of counsel's submission and considering the law declared in Celestium Financial (supra), the acquittal appeal is disposed of, reserving liberty in favour of the appellant to file an appeal before the appropriate Court within 60 days from the date of 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 the limitation while deciding the same and will proceed to decide it in accordance with law.

¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Procedure - Acquittal appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC against acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act (JMFC, Korba, Complaint Case No. 414/2014, judgment dated 11.02.2020) - On counsel's submission invoking the Supreme Court's ruling in M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804 (that a complainant under Section 138 is a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) CrPC / Section 2(y) BNSS and may appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC / Section 413 BNSS), the High Court disposed of the appeal, reserving liberty to the appellant to file an appeal before the appropriate Court within 60 days, with a direction that if filed within that time, limitation shall not be insisted upon; Registry to return certified copies and send the record back.

2025:CGHC:49636

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

ACQA No. 634 of 2024

¶6

1. Chabindra Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri G.R. Sahu Aged About 44 Years Resident Of Secl Colony Dipka, Korba, District Korba (C.G.),...(Complainant)

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1. Manoj Giri S/o Late Shri Kuber Giri Aged About 45 Years R/o Purani Basti, Korba, District Korba (C.G.),...(Accused)

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Appellant : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, Advocate

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶13

Judgment on Board

¶14

06.10.2025

¶15

1. This acquittal appeal U/s 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed against the judgment dated 11.02.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) in Complaint Case No. 414/2014 whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted for the commission of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

¶16

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that recently the Supreme Court has delivered a judgment in the matter of M/s.

¶17

Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH YADAV YADAV Date: 2025.10.07 12:00:39 +0530

¶18

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

Sd/- Sd/ (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶24

Manish

Chabindra Kumar Sahu v. Manoj Giri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chabindra Kumar Sahu v. Manoj Giri

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

Avinash Gunjal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Amank Joshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kanha Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohd. Rashid Jamal Vs M/S Pragati Engineering

Anurag Agrawal Vs Leena Thakur

Sanjay Joshi Vs Ram Pratap