1 2025:CGHC:32679 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1456 of 2025 1 - Samyak Chopra S/o Shri Kanmal Chopra Aged About 35 Years R/o. House No. 18, Panchsheel Ward Gandhi Chowk Mahasamund, Ps Mahasamund, Tehsil And District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Ratan Kumar Sarkar S/o Shri Devnath Sarkar R/o. House No. C 56 Ward No. 53, Pragati Nagar Darri Jaamnipali Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Patel, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 14/07/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2025, an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 2. Upon due consideration and for the reason assigned in the application, the application is allowed and the delay is condoned. PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.07.15 11:22:49 +0530 2 3. The petitioner has filed this Petition under Section 419(4) of the BNSS, 2023 against the judgment dated 04.02.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund in Criminal Complaint Case No.1949/2017, whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that recently in the judgment dated 08.04.2025 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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. 5. 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 petitioner to file an appeal within a period of 45 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. 6. Registry shall return the certified copy of the judgment and relevant documents to counsel for the petitioner after retaining its photocopy. 3 7. Registry shall send back the record to the concerned Court. 8. Accordingly, the CRMP is disposed of. 9. Consequently, all the pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Priyanka Judge