Md. Yakub Alias Gore Vs Mukhtar Ahmad Iraki — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

Md. Yakub Alias Gore Vs Mukhtar Ahmad Iraki — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of without deciding merits, reserving liberty to the appellant to file an appropriate appeal before the concerned/appropriate Court within 60 days, with a direction that the concerned Court shall not insist upon limitation if the appeal is so filed; further, Registry directed to return the certified copy of the impugned judgment/order and documents to counsel for the appellant after retaining a photocopy, and to send the record back to the concerned Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether, in light of the law declared in M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804) - that a complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is a 'victim' under Section 2(y) BNSS (corresponding to Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C.) entitled to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 413 BNSS) - this acquittal appeal under Section 419(4) BNSS should be disposed of reserving liberty to the appellant to avail that remedy. +1 more

Court's answer

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

Ratio / Principle

It is made clear that if such an appeal is filed before the concerned Court within the time given (60 days), the concerned Court shall not insist upon limitation and shall proceed to decide the appeal in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ACQA No. 91 of 2025, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, order dated 10/09/2025, marked NAFR): Md. Yakub alias Gore, complainant, filed this acquittal appeal under Section 419(4) of the BNSS against the judgment dated 09.09.2024 of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Biakunthpur Link Court Manendagarh, District Koriya (C.G.) in Mis. Cr. Case No. 21/2022, whereby respondent/accused Mukhtar Ahmad Iraki was acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. At the outset, counsel submitted that in M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804, the Supreme Court held that a complainant in a Section 138 complaint is a 'victim' as defined in Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 2(y) BNSS, and is entitled to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 413 BNSS, and sought disposal with liberty to avail that remedy. Considering the law declared in Celestium Financial (supra), the Court disposed of the appeal reserving liberty to the appellant to file an appeal within 60 days before the appropriate Court, directing that if filed within that period the concerned Court shall not insist upon limitation and shall decide it in accordance with law; Registry to return the certified copy of the impugned judgment after retaining a photocopy and to send the record back to the concerned Court.

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

ACQA No. 91 of 2025

1 - Md. Yakub Alias Gore S/o Late Md. Jahir Aged About 54 Years (Age Not Mentioned In The Impugned Judgment), R/o Ward No. 05, Moharpara, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.).

... Appellant

versus

1 - Mukhtar Ahmad Iraki S/o Ali Ahmad Iraki, Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No. 06, House No. 267 Moharpara, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.).

... Respondent

For Appellant : Ms. Surbhi Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Adil Minhaj, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Order on Board

10/09/2025

1. This acquittal appeal U/s 419(4) of the BNSS has been filed against the judgment dated 09.09.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Biakunthpur Link Court Manendagarh, District - Koriya (C.G.) in Mis. Cr. Case No. 21/2022 whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the commission of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that

Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.09.10 17:21:23 +0530

2

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.

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.

4. Registry shall return the certified copy of the impugned judgment/order and relevant documents to counsel for the appellant after retaining a photocopy of the same.

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

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

H.L. Sahu