1 2025:CGHC:35427 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 98 of 2022 Smt. Champa Yadav W/o Shri Jailal Yadav, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Kotwar Para, Heeranagar, P. S. Gidam, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Masa Ram Murami ,S/o Late Khotalu, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Heeranagar (Kotwarpara), P. S. Gidam, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.). 2 - Smt. Soni Murami, W/o Late Khotalu, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Village Heeranagar (Kotwarpara), P. S. P.S. Gidam, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Neela Murami, W/o Shri Masa Murami, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Heeranagar (Kotwarpara), P. S. P.S. Gidam, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Laxmi Murami, W/o Masa Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Heeranagar (Kotwarpara), P. S. P.S. Gidam, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station - Gidam, Distt. Dantewada, (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent No.5/State : Shri Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer. SB: Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal Order on Board 23/07/2025 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2025.07.24 10:48:54 +0530 2 judgment dated 20/06/2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.04/16, whereby, the Respondents No.1 to 4/accused have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 294, 506 (Part-II), 451/34 of IPC, while a lesser punishment has been awarded under Section 323 (4 counts) of IPC. 2) At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that recently in the judgment dated 08/04/2025 rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., reported in 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 for the appellant submits further that the Supreme Court in the said matter has reserved the liberty in favour of the petitioner therein to prefer an appeal in the light of the provisions of Section 372 of the Cr.P.C, and, therefore, in the instant case also the appellant may be permitted to withdraw this appeal with liberty to prefer an appeal before the concerned Session Judge under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He further submits that the limitation may not come in the way while deciding the appeal on its merits. 3) In the light of the submissions made herein-above and considering the law declared by the Supreme Court in the said matter, this Court is 3 inclined to permit the appellant to withdraw this appeal by granting him liberty to prefer the appeal against the impugned judgment dated 20/06/2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.04/16, before the concerned Sessions Judge within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Order accordingly. 4) It is clarified that if such an appeal is preferred before the concerned Session Judge 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 and relevant documents to counsel for the appellant after retaining the photocopy of the same and, shall remit the record to the concerned Court forthwith. 6) Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE Kamde