1 2025:CGHC:46301 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1497 of 2024 Laxmi Rao W/o Venkat Mohan Rao, Aged About 44 Years R/o Lal Bahadur Shastri Ward Type Iii-167, Football Ground, Kirandul, District South Bastar (Dantewada) (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Rakesh Chand Padamvar S/o Late Sudama Swami, Aged About 53 Years R/o Main Market, Kirandul, District South Bastar (Dantewada) (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Shreshtha Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 10.09.2025 1. The complainant/petitioner has filed this petition under Section 378 CrPC (corresponding to section 419(4) of BNSS) seeking grant of leave to appeal. The prayer made in the acquittal appeal filed along-with the petition shows that he seeks a direction to set aside the impugned judgment dated 13.02.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bacheli, Distt. South Bastar Dantewada in Complaint Case No. 39/2020 by which the respondent/accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the complaint filed u/s section 138 of NI Act before the trial Court stood dismissed, the petition filed u/s 419(4) of BNSS can be disposed of in terms of an acquittal appeal and it is no longer necessary to seek special leave to appeal, because the complainant is considered victim and has statutory right to appeal under the proviso to Section 413 BNSS (Section 372 CrPC). 2 3. Having considered the submission made by learned counsel, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition in terms of acquittal appeal. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that recently the Supreme Court has rendered the decision in M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. reported in 2025 INSC 804 holding that the complainant in a complaint filed under section 138 of the Act of 1881 is also a victim as defined in section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 2(y) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNSS”). He submits that the Supreme Court has further held that the complainant in a complaint under section 138 of the Act of 1881 can also be entitled to file an appeal under proviso to section 372 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 413 of the BNSS. Learned counsel submits that the case may be disposed of reserving liberty so as to avail the said remedy of appeal. 5. In view of the aforesaid submission and considering the law declared in the matter of Celestium Financial (supra), this Cr.M.P/Appeal is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the appellant to file an appeal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy 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 impugned judgment/order and relevant documents to counsel for the appellant after retaining the photocopy of the same. 7. Registry shall send back the record to the concerned Court. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao