Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010190092025 2025:GAU-AS:11973 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.L.P./40/2025 SAJIMA BEGUM D/O. NABAB ALI, R/O. VILL.- BANBARIA, P/S. BARPETA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781309. VERSUS KHANDAKAR ABDUR SATTAR SA/O. LT. KHANDAKAR ABDUL KASIM ALI, R/O. VILL.- BALAIPATHAR, P/S. KALGACHIA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P D BHUYAN, S RAHMAN,MR. A. M. SIDDIQUE,MR. N D BHUYAN Advocate for the Respondent : , Linked Case : ST.Rev./0/0 SAJIMA BEGUM ASSAM VERSUS KHANDAKAR ABDUR SATTAR ASSAM ------------ Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for : Parthadeep Dutta Bhuyan Advocate for : appearing for KHANDAKAR ABDUR SATTAR BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 03-09-2025 Heard Mr. A. M. Siddique, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 419(4) of the BNSS, 2023 seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.07.2025, passed by the learned Addl. CJM, Barpeta (Assam), whereby the complaint case of the complainant being N.I. Case No.284/2025 was dismissed and the accused was acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 3. Mr. Siddique, learned counsel submitted that the instant leave petition has been filed under Section 419(4) BNSS seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal, as noted above. 4. It is further submitted that even if a victim is a complainant, he can still proceed under the proviso to Section 419(4) BNSS and in that context, Mr. Siddique, learned counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has framed the following questions: “2.1. The central issue arising for adjudication in the instant appeals is, whether an appeal would be maintainable under the proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) against an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Page No.# 3/3 Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the Act”), by treating the complainant in such a proceeding as a victim within the meaning ascribed to the term under Section 2 (wa) of the Cr.P.C.” 5. Accordingly, considering the submission of Mr. Accordingly, considering the submission of Mr. Siddique, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner and also considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Celestium Financial (supra), I find it proper to grant leave to prefer an appeal against the order 21.07.2025, whereby the accused was acquitted of the offence. 6. In view of the above, this Criminal Leave Petition is allowed. 7. Registry is directed to register and number the connected appeal and to list the same before the appropriate Bench, on a date to be fixed by it. JUDGE Comparing Assistant