Anurag Agrawal Vs Leena Thakur

1 . The complainant/petitioner has filed this petition under Section 419(4) of BNSS) seeking grant of leave to appeal. The prayer made in the acquittal appeal filed along-with the petition shows that he seeks a direction to set aside the impugned judgment dated 19.03.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G) in Complaint Case No. 2908/2020 by which the respondent /accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶15

2 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the complaint filed u/s section 138 of NI Act before the trial Court stood dismissed, the

¶16

2

¶17

petition filed u/s 419(4) of BNSS can be disposed of in terms of an acquittal appeal and it is no longer necessary to seek special leave to appeal, because the complainant is considered victim and has statutory right to appeal under the proviso to Section 413 BNSS (Section 372 CrPC).

¶18

3 . Having considered the submission made by learned counsel, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition in terms of acquittal appeal.

¶19

4 . At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court rendered in M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. 2025 INSC 804 wherein it has been held 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”) and thus the said complaint can also be entitled to file an appeal under proviso to section 372 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 413 of the BNSS , the case may be disposed of reserving liberty so as to avail the said remedy of appeal.

¶20

5 . Having considered the submission of learned counsel and in view of the law laid down in case of Celestium Financial (supra), this Cr.M.P/Acquittal Appeal is disposed of with liberty to the appellant to file appeal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy 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

6 . 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

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

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶25

Rao

Anurag Agrawal v. Leena Thakur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anurag Agrawal v. Leena Thakur

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

Sanjay Joshi Vs Ram Pratap

Chabindra Kumar Sahu Vs Manoj Giri