1 2025:CGHC:27463 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1941 of 2025 1 - Monalisa Agrawal W/o Shri Ajay Kumar Agrawal Aged About 28 Years R/o Danipara, Raigarh, Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.), Through Her Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Ajay Kumar Agrawal ... Petitioner versus 1 - Ganda Rai Gupta S/o Late Shri Makardhwaj Gupta, R/o Chichor Umariya, P.S. And Tahsil - Pusour, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Mayank Kumar appears on behalf of Mr. Shahil Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 24/06/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this Petition under Section 419(4) of the BNSS, 2023 against the judgment dated 22.03.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh in Complaint Case No.794/2012, whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.06.25 13:25:45 +0530 2 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 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. 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 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. 4. Registry shall return the certified copy of the judgment and relevant documents to counsel for the petitioner after retaining its photocopy. 5. Registry shall send back the record to the concerned Court. 6. Accordingly, the CRMP is disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Priyanka Judge