1 2025:CGHC:24473 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1391 of 2025 Sushant Rudra S/o Ratan Rudra Aged About 59 Years R/o. Village - Jagdalla, Tahsil Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus Laxmin Bai Yadav W/o. Raghunandan Yadav Aged About 53 Years R/o. Filter Tanki Road, Nayapara Champa, Tahsil Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 16.06.2025 1. The appellant has filed this Petition under Section 419(4) of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of special leave to Appeal against the order/judgment of acquittal dated 12.03.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janjgir-Champa in Complaint Case No.119/2022, whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the NI Act”). 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 Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Date: 2025.06.17 10:23:25 +0530 2 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. He submits that the case may be disposed of reserving liberty so as to avail the said remedy. 3. In view of the aforesaid submission and considering the law declared in the matter of Celestium Financial (supra), this petition stands disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the appellant to file an appeal within a period of 30 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. 4. Registry shall return the certified copy of the order/judgment and relevant documents to counsel for the appellant after retaining its photocopy. 5. Registry shall send back the record to the concerned Court. 6. Accordingly, the CRMP is disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay/Priyanka.