1 2025:CGHC:23132 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 1170 of 2024 1 - Rajendra Kumar Sahu S/o Shobharam Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Near Gramin Bank, Main Road, Jayramnagar, P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant/Complainant. versus 1 - Smt. Shilpa Kaushik W/o Harish Kumar Kaushik Aged About 35 Years R/o Raipur Road Parsada, P.S. Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Office Address - Krushi Vigyan Kendra Sarkanda Farm Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent. For Petitioner(s) : Shri Achyut Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 11/06/2025 1. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that recently in the matter of Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.1, right to file appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. was discussed and following was materially observed at paras 7.7 to 7.9, which read as 1 Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.137-139/2025, judgment dated 08.04.2025. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.06.12 14:21:06 +0530 2 under:- “ 7.7. In the context of offences under the Act, particularly under Section 138 of the said Act, the complainant is clearly the aggrieved party who has suffered economic loss and injury due to the default in payment by the accused owing to the dishonour of the cheque which is deemed to be an offence under that provision. In such circumstances, it would be just, reasonable and in consonance with the spirit of the CrPC to hold that the complainant under the Act also qualifies as a victim within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the CrPC. Consequently, such a complainant ought to be extended the benefit of the proviso to Section 372, thereby enabling him to maintain an appeal against an order of acquittal in his own right without having to seek special leave under Section 378(4) of the CrPC. 7.8. In the case of an offence alleged against an accused under Section 138 of the Act, we are of the view that the complainant is indeed the victim owing to the alleged dishonour of a cheque. In the circumstances, the complainant can proceed as per the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC and he may exercise such an option and he need not then elect to proceed under Section 378 of the CrPC. 7.9. In this context, we wish to state that the proviso to Section 372 does not make a distinction between an accused who is charged of an offence under the penal law or a person who is deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act. Symmetrical to a victim of an offence, a victim of a deemed offence under Section 138 of the Act also has the right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the court acquitting the 3 accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing an inadequate compensation. When viewed from the perspective of an offence under any penal law or a deemed offence under Section 138 of the Act, the right to file an appeal is not circumscribed by any condition as such, so long as the appeal can be premised in accordance with proviso to Section 372 which is the right to file an appeal by a victim, provided the circumstances which enable such a victim to file an appeal are met. The complainant under Section 138 is the victim who must also have the right to prefer an appeal under the said provision. Merely because the proceeding under Section 138 of the Act commences with the filing of a complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC by a complainant, he does not cease to be a victim inasmuch as it is only a victim of a dishonour of cheque who can file a complaint. Thus, under Section 138 of the Act both the complainant as well as the victim are one and the same person.” 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in view of the aforesaid dictum, as the victim of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., this 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), this Appeal stands disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the appellant to file appeal within a period of 30 days from this order before the appropriate Court, in accordance with law. 4 5. Registry shall return the certified copy of the judgment and relevant documents to counsel for the petitioner after retaining its photocopy. 6. Registry shall send back the record to the concerned Court. 7. Accordingly, the Appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash