COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.…
Appeal disposed of with liberty to appellant to file appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C./Section 413 BNSS before appropriate court within 60 days, limitation not to be insisted upon.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SHUBHAM SINGH SINGH RAGHUVANSHI RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.04.28 10:59:55 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 143 of 2011
Rajesh Agrawal, aged about 35 years, S/o R.S. Agrawal, R/o Geetanjali Apartment, Sindhi Colony, P.S. Civil Line, Bilaspur, Tehsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.)
versus
Rajesh Chhabada, S/o Om Prakash Chhabara, aged about 50 years, R/o Pooja Apartment, Block-C, Flat No. 402, Kranti Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For Respondent : None
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
27/04/2026
1. This acquittal appeal U/s 378(1) of the Cr.P.C. has been f i led against the judgment dated 09.05.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.) in Complaint Case No. 727/2010 whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge for commission of of f ence under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
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. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.
2
reported in 2025 INSC 804 holding that the complainant in a complaint f i led under section 138 of the Act of 1881 is also a victim as def i ned 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 f i le an appeal under proviso to Section 372 of 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) and also keeping in mind the fact that the provision of Section 372 of Cr.P.C. has been amended in 2009 whereas the appeal has been fled in the year 2011, in view of above, this appeal stands i disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the appellant to f i le an appeal within a period of 60 days from today before the appropriate Court, in accordance with law. It is further made clear that if such an appeal is f i led 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 certif i ed copy of the impugned judgment/order and relevant documents to counsel for the appellant after retaining photocopy of the same.
5. Registry shall send back the record to the concerned Court.
Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge
Shubham
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.Relied on¶3
2025 INSC 804 · Who else cites this
7 provisions across 3 enactments
Rajesh Agrawal
Rajesh Chhabada
Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
