1 2025:CGHC:46692 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1122 of 2025 Kesari Verma S/o. Ayodhyaya Prasad Verma, Aged About 54 Years R/o. Radha Vihar Colony, Balodabazar, Police Station Balodabazar, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder Rajesh Mishra S/o. Shashikant Mishra, Age 45 Years, R/o. Radha Vihar Colony, Balodabazar, Police Station Balodabazar, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) (complainant). ... Petitioner. versus Devprasad Patel S/o. Kuruso Patel, Aged About 42 Years R/o. Village Dhurupali, Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.) (accused). ... Respondent. For Petitioner : Shri Arpan Verma along with Shri Shashwat Mishra, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 12/09/2025 1. At the outset, counsel for the petitioner submits that conviction against the respondent/accused has been recorded under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar Bhatapara, C.G. in Complaint Case No.100/2022 vide judgment dated 29.03.2025, which was reversed by the AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.09.12 15:07:04 +0530 2 appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.25/2025 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, District Balodabazar Bhatapara vide judgment dated 26.07.2025. He further submits that against the said judgment, an Appeal is maintainable and the law is well settled in the matter of Asian Paints Limited vs. Ram Babu & Another {2025 INSC 828}, wherein at Paras 43 to 46, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has materially observed the following:- “43. We are constrained to observe that the finding of the High Court that the Appellant could not have maintained the appeal before it would amount to completely negating the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC. In our considered opinion, Section 372 of the CrPC is a self-contained and independent Section; in other words, it is a stand-alone Section. Section 372 of the CrPC is not regulated by other provisions of Chapter XXIX of the CrPC. The proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC operates independently of and shall not be read conjointly with any other provision in the CrPC, much less Section 378 of the CrPC. 44. At the cost of repetition, we have indicated above as to who would be covered as a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC. There is no doubt that the Appellant is the ‘victim’ herein. As explained in Jagjeet Singh vs. Ashish Mishra alias Monu {(2022) 9 SCC 321}, it is not necessary for the ‘victim’ to also be the ‘complainant’ or the ‘informant’ in a given case. 45. Furthermore, another aspect that needs to be considered is as to whether an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC would be restricted only to mean an appeal to the First Appellate Court or include even an appeal to the Second Appellate Court/High Court, which happens to be the case herein. 46. We find that this is not a very complicated issue of law. We do not propose to complicate it! The language employed by the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC is unambiguous to the effect that ‘the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal 3 against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.” (emphasis supplied) 2. In view of the aforesaid, counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Revision and to file a better constituted Appeal in accordance with law. 3. Reserving liberty as aforesaid, this Revision stands disposed of. 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. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash