1 2025:CGHC:55135 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No.65 of 2016 Babu Lal S/o Jhadu Ram Gond, Caste Gond, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Vill. Tuegondi, Post Kamka Par, Tah. Doundilauhara, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant Versus 1 - Pardeshi Ram, S/o Gabharu Gond Aged About 65 Years Caste Gond, 2 - Daya Ram S/o Suklu Gond ,Aged About 65 Years Caste Gond, 3 - Suresh Singh S/o Dayaram Aged About 26 Years, Caste Gond, 4 - Butkar Singh S/o Chamar Singh, Aged About 54 Years Caste Gond, 5 - Than Singh S/o Chamar Singh, Aged About 30 Years, Caste Gond, 6 - Narad Singh S/o Ude Ram Aged About 39 Years, Caste Gond, 7 - Ram Dayal S/o Mehattar Aged About 58 Years, Caste Gond, 8 - Shyam Lal S/o Latel Aged About 60 Years, Caste Gond, 9 - Dhanush Lal S/o Baisakhu Ram,Aged About 57 Years, Caste Gond, 10 - Gannu S/o Anjor Singh, Aged About 27 Years, Caste Gond, 11 - Dhanesh Rawate S/o Rajau, Aged About 42 Years, Caste Mahar, All are R/o Vill. Tuegondi, Post Kamka Par, Tah. Doundilauhara, Distt. Balod Chhattisgarh. 12 - Suklu S/o Kunwar Singh, Aged About 55 Years, Caste Halba, 13 - Shambhu S/o Panna Lal, Aged About 52 Years Caste Halba, Both are R/o Vill. Lamti, Tah. Doundilauhara, Distt. Balod Chhattisgarh. 14 - Anand Ram Bhuarya S/o Sube Singh, Aged About 45 Years, Caste Halba, R/o Vill. Pidipal, Tah. Doundilauhara, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh. 15 - Dhannu S/o Jhadu Ram Gond, Aged About 38 Years, PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.11.12 16:25:42 +0530 2 16 - Smt. Budho Bai W/o Babu Lal, Aged About 55 Years, 17 - Lallu Ram S/o Anjor Singh Aged About 26 Years, 18 - Smt. Kamla Bai, W/o Lallu Ram Aged About 22 Years, All are R/o Vill. Tuegondi, Post Kamka Par, Tah. Doundilauhara, Distt. Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 12.11.2025 1. This criminal revision has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the applicant/complainant Babu Lal, calling in question the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Balod (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 2164/2015, whereby the appeal preferred by the applicant/complainant against the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dondilohara, District Balod, was dismissed as not maintainable. The learned Appellate Court, after hearing the applicant, came to the conclusion that since the case was instituted on the basis of a private complaint, the word “victim” used in the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. does not include a complainant, and that in such cases, the complainant has the right to appeal against an order of acquittal only under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. Hence, holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal, the learned Appellate Court dismissed the 3 same. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant qualifies as a “victim” within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”), which corresponds to Section 2(y) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the BNSS”). It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran & Others, reported in 2025 INSC 804, has held that a complainant is also to be considered a victim. Learned counsel further submits that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid judgment, granted liberty to the petitioner therein to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicant in the present case may also be permitted to withdraw this revision petition with liberty to prefer an appeal before the competent Sessions Judge under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 413 of the BNSS. It is also submitted that the question of limitation may not be treated as a bar while adjudicating the appeal on its merits. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the documents available on record. 4. Considering the submissions made herein above and also in the light of judgment laid down by the Supreme Court referred to above, this Court is inclined to permit the applicant to withdraw this revision by granting liberty to prefer the appeal against the impugned order dated 4 30.11.2015 before the concerned Sessions Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. It is clarified that if such an appeal is filed before the concerned Sessions Court within the time prescribed 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. In that view of the matter, Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned order after obtaining the attested photocopy of the same. 6. The record of the case be sent back to the concerned Sessions Court forthwith. 7. In view of the above, the present revision stands disposed of. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Prakash