1 2025:CGHC:23376 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1611 of 2025 1 - Shanti Bricks Industries Through Its Proprietor Smt. Shweta Agrawal, W/o. Shri. Rajendra Agrawal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o. Village Radhapur, Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Through Rajendra Agrawal S/o Late Shri Santlal Agrawal, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Village Radhapur, Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s)/Complainant versus 1 - Anita Ekka W/o Kashi Ram Aged About 50 Years R/o Sitapur, Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s)/Accused. For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Shivangi Agrawal appears on behalf of Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 12/06/2025 1. The petition has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 04.02.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur district Surguja in Complaint Case No.179/2022, whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. 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 AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13 15:30:27 +0530 2 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. Learned counsel submits that the petition may be disposed of reserving liberty so as to avail the said remedy. 3. 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 to decide the same in accordance with law. 4. 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. 5. Registry shall send back the record to the concerned Court. 6. Accordingly, the CRMP is disposed of. 7. Pending applications stands disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash