1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 61 of 2017 Smt. Asha Soni, W/o Durgesh Kumar Sinha, aged about 25 years (presently 34 years), R/o Presently Residing with Ramisamujh Soni, Koriya Mines, Godaripara, Chirmiri, District Koriya (C.G.) ... Appellant versus Durgesh Kumar Soni, S/o Ramlochan Seth, aged about 30 years, Occupation Constable, C.R.P.F. D-148 Batallian, Bhupnagar, Kistwaad, District – Dodha (Jammu Kashmir) ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Ranjeeta Patel appears on behalf of Shri Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate. For Respondent : None. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 02/01/2026 1. This acquittal appeal is filed under section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C. by the appellant against the judgment dated 25.06.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chirmiri, District Koriya (C.G.) in Complaint Case No.578/2014 whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused of the charge under Section 498-A of IPC by giving benefit of doubt. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent of the charge under Section 498-A of IPC, but PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2026.01.02 15:50:30 +0530 2 the appellant/complainant is also a “victim” within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “Cr.P.C.”), which corresponds to Section 2(y) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNSS”). She further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran & Ors., reported in 2025 INSC 804, has held that a complainant is also to be considered a victim. Learned counsel further submits that the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has granted liberty to the petitioner therein to prefer an appeal under the provisions of Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, it is prayed that the appellant in the present matter may be permitted to withdraw the present appeal with liberty to prefer an appeal before the competent Sessions Judge under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 413 of the BNSS. It is further submitted that the question of limitation may not be a bar while adjudicating the appeal on its merits. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the documents on record. 4. Considering the submissions made herein above and also in the light of judgment laid down by the Supreme Court referred to above, this Court is inclined to permit the appellant to withdraw this appeal by granting liberty to prefer the appeal against the impugned judgment dated 25.06.2016 before the concerned Sessions Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. It is clarified that if such an appeal is filed before the concerned Sessions Court within the time prescribed 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. 5. In that view of the matter, Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned judgment after obtaining the attested photocopy of the 3 same. 6. The record of the case be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith. 7. In view of the above, the present appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Prakash