1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 80 of 2018 Hulasram S/o Saharu Aged About 65 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Chandipara, Police Station Pamgarh, Tahsil And District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh..............Complainant, ... Appellant versus 1 - Hira Prasad S/o Govind Aged About 55 Years R/o Pamgarh, Police Station Pamgarh, Tahsil And District Janjgir Champa, 2 - Chaitram Khattar S/o Tirithram Aged About 50 Years R/o Hospital Quarter, Pamgarh, Police Station Pamgarh, Tahsil And District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., 3 - Manharan Khunte S/o Milan Aged About 40 Years R/o Mehendi, Police Station Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., 4 - Bholam Bhasker S/o Barnu Aged About 35 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Pendri P. S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., 5 - Kanak Joshi S/o Ogiyar Aged About 40 Years R/o Pendri P. S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., 6 - Jaipal Singh S/o Mohitram Aged About 40 Years Caste Suryawanshi, R/o Kodabhath, P. S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., 7 - Shivdayal S/o Baliram Aged About 50 Years R/o Pamgarh, P. S. Pamgarh, Tahsil And District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Shri Ritesh Verma, Advocate. For Respondents : None. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.01.02 15:47:15 +0530 2 02/01/2026 1. This acquittal appeal is filed under section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C. by the appellant- complainant against the judgment dated 23.09.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, Dist. Janjgir (C.G.) in Complaint Case No. 338/2011 whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondents/accused of the charges under Sections 147, 294 & 506 Part-II of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant submits that the appellant qualifies as 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”). It is further submitted 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 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-complainant 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-complainant to withdraw this appeal by granting liberty to prefer the appeal against the impugned judgment dated 23.09.2017 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 3 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 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 Anjani