1 2025:CGHC:44673 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 243 of 2019 1 - Sushma Singh W/o Shri Raghuraj Singh Aged About 40 Years Occupation Private Job, R/o Ward No. 5, Mauharpara Manendragarh, Police Station And Tehsil- Manendragarh, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh. (complainant) ... Appellant. versus 1 - Rekha Soni W/o Narmada Prasad Soni Aged About 38 Years Occupation House Wife, R/o Lahangir Mohalla, Ward No. 13, Manendragarh, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh. (accused) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Shubhangi Varshney appears on behalf of Shri Sanjeev Verma, Advocates. For Respondent(s) : Shri Adil Minhaj, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 02/09/2025 1. This acquittal appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 10.01.19 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh District Koriya CG in Complaint Case No.295/18 whereby, respondent/accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.09.02 17:05:27 +0530 2 2. 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 Cr.P.C. 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. Learned counsel submits that the case may be disposed of reserving liberty so as to avail the said remedy. 3. Counsel for the respondent would not oppose the aforesaid prayer. 4. In view of the aforesaid submission and considering the law declared in the matter of Celestium Financial (supra), this Appeal stands disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the appellant to file an appeal within a period of 45 days from 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. 5. 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. 6. Registry shall send back the record to the concerned Court. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash