1 2025:CGHC:39484 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 263 of 2022 Wahid Khan S/o Late Mehboob Khan, Aged About 60 Years R/o Nayapra, Baloda Bazar, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, (CG) ... Appellant versus 1 - Abdul Haider S/o Abdul Hafiz, Aged About 40 Years 2 - Mohammad Asarat, S/o Abdul Gaffar, Aged About 35 Years 3 - Tanvir Ahamad, S/o Samim Ahamad, Aged About 36 Years 4 - Mehmood Ali, S/o Meer Sayyed, Aged About 45 Years 5 - Subhan Khan, S/o Gulam Khan, Aged About 53 Years The Respondents No. 1 to 5 are resident of Nayapra, Baloda Bazar P.S. Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara(CG) 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Baloda Bazar, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara (CG) ... Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Soumya Mishra, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Prakash Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Shri K.N. Mehar, Advocate. For State/Respondent No.6 : Shri Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on Board 07.08.2025 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.08.07 18:06:47 +0530 2 the judgment of acquittal dated 24.05.2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balodabazar (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.822/ 2013, whereby, the respondents/accused have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 298, 506Part-II and 384 of IPC. 2) At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that recently, in the judgment dated 08.04.2025, rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., reported in 2025 INSC 804, right to prefer an appeal under the 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 for the appellant submits further that the Supreme Court in the said matter has reserved the liberty in favour of the petitioner therein to prefer an appeal in the light of the provisions of Section 372 of the Cr.P.C, and, therefore, in the instant case also the appellant may be permitted to withdraw this appeal with liberty to prefer an appeal before the concerned Session Court under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He further submits that the limitation may not come in the way while deciding the appeal on its own merits. 3) In the light of the submissions made herein-above and keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court referred herein- 3 above, this Court is inclined to permit the appellant to withdraw this appeal by granting him liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned judgment dated 24.05.2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balodabazar (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.822/2013, before the concerned Sessions Judge within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. 4) It is clarified that if such an appeal is preferred before the concerned Session Judge 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 to counsel for the appellant after obtaining the photocopy of the same and, shall remit the record to the concerned trial court forthwith. 6) Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge sunita