Nirmal Chand Kothari Vs Sangita Khandelwal

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:2699

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

ACQA No. 172 of 2020

¶6

Nirmal Chand Kothari S/o Umedchand Kothari, Aged About 49 Years, Occupation Business, R/o P. Santosh Kumar & Brothers, In Front Of New Bus Stand, Post, Tehsil, Police Station and District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Appellant.

¶8

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.01.16 16:51:58 +0530

¶9

-Versus-

¶10

Sangita Khandelwal W/o Ashok Khandelwal, Aged 50 Years, Occupation Contractor, R/o Proprietor Gayatri Constructions, Khandelwal Complex, Kamathi Line, Post, Tehsil, Police Station and District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent.

¶11

(Cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery)

¶12

For Appellant : Mr. Khilendra Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Advocate.

¶13

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

16/01/2026

¶16

Though this case is listed on default for non-filing of application for condonation delay in payment of process fee, however, having considered the prayer of the appellant to dispose of this appeal in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., {2025 INSC 804} , the aforesaid default is waived.

¶17

This appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity the “ CrPC ”) has been filed by the

¶18

2

¶19

appellant/complainant challenging the judgment dated 03.06.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balod, District Balod in Criminal Case No.193/2018, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the “ NI Act ”). The appeal has been filed along with an application under Section 378(4) of the CrPC for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 17.03.2020.

¶20

At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that recently in the judgment dated 08.04.2025 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., {2025 INSC 804} , right to file appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC was discussed and it was held that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court. He further submits that the case may be disposed of reserving liberty so as to avail the said remedy.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid submission and considering the law declared in the matter of Celestium Financial (supra), this appeal is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the appellant to file an appeal within a period of 45 days from the date of 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 stipulated period given by this Court, it would not insist upon the limitation while

¶22

3

¶23

deciding the same and will proceed to decide the same in accordance with law.

¶24

Registry shall return the certified copy of the impugned judgment and relevant documents to counsel for the appellant after retaining xerox copy of the same.

¶25