Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010196802024 2025:GAU-AS:10251 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.L.P./36/2024 M/S TIRUPATI UDYOG A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, SITUATED AT PAGLASTHAN, BONGAIGAON, P.O., P.S. AND DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNERS, SRI MAHESH KUMAR SUREKA, AGED ABOUTH 56 YEARS, S/O. LATE SOHANLAL SUREKA. VERSUS DILIP HALOI S/O. LATE TARUN HALOI, R/O. DOAIGAON, BONGAIGAON, P/O. AND P/S. BONGAIGAON, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D K KOTHARI, MR P DAS,MR P PRAWAR,MR Y KOTHARI,MR. N KOTHARI Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 06-08-2025 Heard Mr. Y. Kothari, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner. 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 23.07.2024, passed by the learned CJM, Bongaigaon whereby the complaint case of the complainant being NICR Case No. 133/2022 was dismissed and the accused was acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Mr. Kothari, learned counsel submitted that the instant leave petition has been filed under Section 378(4) CrPC seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal, as noted above. It is further submitted that even if a victim is a complainant, he can still proceed under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC and in that context, Mr. Kothari, 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 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.” Page No.# 3/3 Accordingly, considering the submission of Mr. Kothari, 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 23.07.2024, whereby the accused was acquitted of the offence. In view of the above, this Criminal Leave Petition is allowed. 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