1 2025:CGHC:46278 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1038 of 2024 New Chhabda Enterprises Through Proprietor Rajkumar Chhabda S/o Balwant Singh Chabbda, Aged About 52 Years, Having Registered Address- Shop No. E/1, Bombay Market, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus Shri Praveen Kumar Singh S/o Shri R.N. Singh Aged About 39 Years R/o Super Tirupati Balaji Transport, Near Rakesh Dharam Kanta, Ring Road No.- 2, Bhanupari, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Other Address- Near Community Building, Block No. 30, Shivanand Nagar, Srinagar, Khamtarai Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For the petitioner : Mr. Soumitra Kesarwani, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Aamir Khan & Mr. Veer Verma, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 10.09.2025 1. There is delay of 2 days in filing the CRMP/Appeal which has been sought to be condoned by filing I.A.No.1/2024. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 2 days is condoned . Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2024 is allowed. 2. The complainant/petitioner has filed this petition under Section 378 CrPC (corresponding to section 419(4) of BNSS) seeking grant of leave to appeal. The prayer made in the acquittal appeal filed along-with the petition shows that he seeks a direction to set aside the impugned judgment dated 02.02.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G) in Criminal Complaint 2 Case No. 863/2016 by which the respondent/accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that is no longer necessary to seek special leave to appeal because the complainant is considered victim and has statutory right to appeal under the proviso to Section 413 BNSS (Section 372 CrPC). 4. Having considered the submission made by learned counsel, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition in terms of acquittal appeal. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. reported in 2025 INSC 804 wherein it has been held that the complainant in a complaint filed under section 138 of the Act of 1881 is also a victim as defined in section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 2(y) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNSS”) and the said complainant can also be entitled to file an appeal under proviso to section 372 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 413 of the BNSS, the instant case may be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner so as to avail the said remedy of appeal. 6. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the position of law declared by the Supreme Court in case of Celestium Financial (supra), this Cr.M.P/Appeal is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the appellant to file an appeal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy 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 limitation while deciding the same and will proceed to decide the same in accordance with law. 7. 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. 8. Registry shall send back the record to the concerned Court. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao