1 2025:CGHC:27537 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1826 of 2025 1 - Vikas Keshwani S/o Shri Devidas Keshwani Aged About 42 Years R/o M-35, Rajeev Nagar, P.S. Pandri, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Complainant) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ramesh Kumar Suntwal S/o Late Bal Chand Suntwal Aged About 45 Years R/o In Front Of Aditya Apartment, Bhrata Cottage, 18/254, Shri Ram Nagar, Phase- 2, P.S. Pandri, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Accused) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Suraj Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 25/06/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.1/2025, application for condonation of delay of 46 days. For the reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. 2. The petition has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 04.01.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Complaint Case No.218/2020, whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.06.25 16:31:37 +0530 2 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 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. 5. Registry shall return the certified copy of the impugned judgment/order and relevant documents to counsel for the petitioner after retaining the photocopy of the same. 6. Registry shall send back the record to the concerned Court. 7. Accordingly, the CRMP is disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash