Kartik Ram Patel v. Radheshyam Patel

Chhattisgarh HC13 Oct 2025ACQA/73/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

ACQA No. 73 of 2024, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided 14/10/2025 by Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal. Acquittal appeal under S.378(4) Cr.P.C. against acquittal under S.138 N.I. Act (judgment dated 05.12.2022, JMFC Saraipali, Complaint Case No. 382/2017). On counsel's submission relying on M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804, appeal disposed of with liberty to file a fresh appeal under proviso to S.372 Cr.P.C. (S.413 BNSS) within 60 days; limitation not to be insisted upon. No decision on merits.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of with liberty reserved to the appellant to file an appeal within 60 days from the order before the appropriate Court, in accordance with law; if filed within that time, the concerned Court is not to insist upon limitation and will decide the appeal in accordance with law.

Kartik Ram Patel Vs Radheshyam Patel — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the complainant's acquittal appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. should be disposed of with liberty to pursue the remedy of an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 413 BNSS) in view of the law declared in Celestium Financial, and whether limitation should be condoned/insisted upon for such fresh appeal.

¶¶18

Court's answer

In view of counsel's submission and considering the law declared in Celestium Financial (2025 INSC 804), the acquittal appeal stands disposed of reserving liberty to the appellant to file an appeal within a period of 60 days from the order before the appropriate Court, in accordance with law.

¶¶19

Ratio / Principle

If such an appeal is filed before the concerned Court within the time given (60 days), that Court would not insist upon limitation while deciding the same and will proceed to decide it in accordance with law.

¶¶19

Key takeaways

The Registry was directed to return the certified copy of the impugned judgment/order and relevant documents to counsel for the appellant after retaining a photocopy, and to send back the record to the concerned Court.obiter¶¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Acquittal appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against acquittal under Section 138 of the N.I. Act (Complaint Case No. 382/2017, JMFC Saraipali) — disposed of, without adjudication on merits, reserving liberty to the appellant-complainant to file an appeal within 60 days before the appropriate Court, in view of the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804 (complainant under Section 138 is a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. / Section 2(y) BNSS and may appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. / Section 413 BNSS) — directed that if such appeal is filed within the time granted, the concerned Court shall not insist upon limitation and shall decide it in accordance with law.

¶1

¶2

2025:CGHC:51044

¶3

Digitally signed by SOURABH SOURABH PATEL PATEL Date: 2025.10.14 14:36:20 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 73 of 2024

¶6

1 - Kartik Ram Patel S/o Tularam Patel, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Girsa, Police Station And Tahsil Saraipali, DistrictMahasamund (C.G.).

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Radheshyam Patel S/o Daulatram Patel, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Navrangpur, Police Station And Tahsil - Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.).

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Appellant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶13

Judgment on Board

¶14

14/10/2025

¶15

1. This acquittal appeal U/s 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment dated 05.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) in Complaint Case No. 382/2017 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

¶17

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶23

Sourabh P.

Kartik Ram Patel v. Radheshyam Patel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kartik Ram Patel v. Radheshyam Patel

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

The State of Chhattisgarh Vs Suresh Yadav @ Lala

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Satyaprakash Tripathi

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Anil Agarwal

Goverdhan Lal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Rupendra Behra

Jaydeep Kumar Vs Kanhaiya Patel