1 2025:CGHC:41982 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 498 of 2019 1 - Sukhram Singh S/o Late Dhanna Ram Aged About 54 Years R/o Sukhari, Police Station- Gandhinagar, Civil And Revenue District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., (complainant) ... Appellant. versus 1 - Amir Sai S/o Somar Sai Aged About 24 Years. 2 - Ramnaranay S/o Duhan Gond Aged About 23 Years. 3 - Sillu Gond S/o Duhan Gond Aged About 21 Years. 4 - Nicolus Uraon S/o Johanganga Aged About 40 Years. 5 - Duhan Gond S/o Shivcharan Gond Aged About 55 Years. 6 - Rajdev S/o Ramsai Gond Aged About 55 Years. 7 - Mohar Lal S/o Ramsai Gond Aged About 45 Years. 8 - Sudhanshu S/o Jagannath Gond Aged About 25 Years. 9 - Smt. Ramkumari W/o Jagannath Gond Aged About 50 Years. 10 - Smt. Sonmet W/o Rajdev Gond Aged About 45 Years. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.08.20 17:13:13 +0530 2 11 - Smt. Bifaiya Bai W/o Duhan Gond Aged About 47 Years. All are R/o Village- Sukhari, Police Station- Gandhi Nagar, Civil And Revenue District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s)/Accused. For Appellant : Shri Pavash Sharma appears on behalf of Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocates. For Respondent(s) : Shri Shubham Tiwari appears on behalf of Shri AN Pandey, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 20/08/2025 1. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that this Appeal has been filed directly before the High Court by the appellant/complainant against the judgment dated 28.01.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja C.G. in Criminal Case No.1050/13 whereby, respondents/accused have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 143, 427, 435 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that though amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties, however, some charges are not compoundable in nature. 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 3 conviction of such Court. Learned counsel submits that the case may be disposed of reserving liberty so as to avail the said remedy. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would not oppose the aforesaid prayer. 4. In view of the aforesaid submission and considering the law declared in the matter of Celestium Financial (supra), this Appeal stands disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the appellant 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 appellant after retaining the photocopy of the same. 6. Registry shall send back the record to the concerned Court. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash