1 2025:CGHC:31654 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 783 of 2024 1 - Nirmal Chand Kothari S/o Umed Chand Kothari, Aged About 49 Years R/o Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) --- Appellant versus 1 - Hemkishore Bharne S/o Munna Lal Bharne, R/o Shiv Nagar, In Front Of Shitla Mandir, Near Gitti Khadan Talab, New Changorabhata Post, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent ACQA No. 943 of 2024 1 - Vishal Jain S/o. Ganeshmal Jain Aged About 37 Years R/o. Near Allahabad Bank, Mahadev Ghat, Sundar Nagar, P.S. D.D. Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) (Complainant) ---Appellant Versus 1 - Hemlata Bharne W/o. Shri Hemkishore Bharne Aged About 32 Years R/o. In Front Of Shitla Mandir, Near Gitti Khadan Talab, Shivnagar, New Changorabhatha, District - Raipur (C.G.) (Accused) PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.07.10 11:31:29 +0530 2 2 - Hemkishore Bharne S/o. Munna Lal Bharne R/o. In Front Of Shitla Mandir, Near Gitti Khadan Talab, Shivnagar, New Changorabhatha, District - Raipur (C.G.) (Accused) --- Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Rajendra Sahu, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Bhaskar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 09/07/2025 1. These Acquittal Appeals have been preferred under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgments dated 22.03.2024 & 04.03.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon & Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Complaint Case Nos.2679/2017 & 735/2015, whereby, the respondents/accused have been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant 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 3 against the order of conviction of such Court. He submits that the Appeal may be disposed of reserving liberty so as to avail the said remedy. 3. Counsel for the other side 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), these Appeal stand 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 judgments and relevant documents to counsel for the appellant after retaining its photocopy. 6. Registry shall send back the record to the concerned Court. 7. Accordingly, both the Appeals are disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka