1 2025:CGHC:24469 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1675 of 2025 Dinesh Baderiya S/o Late Jagdishchandra Baderiya, Aged About 64 Years, Occupation- Business, R/o Bajarpara, Baikunthpur, Distt. Koriya (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus Dronacharya Dubey, Marketing In-Charge, Dainik Bhaskar, Koriya, Near BSNL Office, Haldibadi, Chirmiri, Distt. Koriya (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. Shivam Agrawal, Advocate : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 16/06/2025 1. Heard. SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2025.06.17 13:28:39 +0530 2 2. This Petition under Section 419(4) of the BNSS, 2023 has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 16.12.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur, District Korea (CG) in Complaint Case No.460/2022, whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. 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 Petition may be disposed of reserving liberty so as to avail the said remedy. 4. 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 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 3 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 petitioner after retaining photocopy of the same. 6. Registry shall send back the record to the concerned Court. 7. Accordingly, the Petition is disposed of. 8. Consequently, all the pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna/Priyanka