1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 508 of 2024 1 - Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Ltd., Registered Under Companies Act 1956, Having Its Corporate Office In Chennai, Branch Office- Office Number 506- 509, Fifth Floor, National Corporate Park, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Through Attorney- Prabhat Singh Rajput. --- Appellant versus 1 - Triveni Tiwari W/o Kamlesh Prasad Tiwari, R/o House No.02, Ads Korta Marg, Vidya Nagar, Village And Post Kawardha, District Kawardha (C.G.) --- Respondent ACQA No. 627 of 2024 1 - Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Ltd. Registered Under Companies Act 1956, Having It's Corporate Office In Chennai, Branch Office Shriram Heights, In Front Of Gandhi Park, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Through Attorney Prakhar Sharma. ---Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Triveni Tiwari W/o Kamlesh Prasad Tiwari R/o House No.2, Arj Korta Marg, Vidya Nagar, Village And Post Kawardha, District Kawardha, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.11.10 16:20:40 +0530 2 For Appellant in both the appeals : Mr. Swayam Tehanguria, Advocate. For Respondent in both the appeals : Ms. Aishley Shrivastava, Adv. On behalf of Mr. Mayank Singh, Adv. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 10/11/2025 1. ACQA No. 508/2024 and ACQA No. 627/2025 U/s 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. have been filed against the judgment dated 09.04.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, (C.G.) in Complaint Case Nos. 104/2012 and 09/2013 respectively whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted for the commission of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that recently the Supreme Court has delivered a judgment in the matter of M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. reported in 2025 INSC 804 holding that the complainant in a complaint filed under section 138 of the Act of 1881 is also a victim as defined in section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 2(y) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNSS”). He submits that the Supreme Court has further held that the complainant in a complaint under section 138 of the Act of 1881 can also be entitled to file an appeal under proviso to section 372 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 413 of the BNSS. Learned counsel submits that the matters may be disposed of reserving liberty so as to avail the said remedy. 3. In view of the aforesaid submission and considering the law declared in the matter of Celestium Financial (supra), both the Appeals stand disposed of reserving liberty in favour of 3 the appellant to file an appeal within a period of 60 days 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. 4. Registry shall return the certified copy of the impugned judgment/order and relevant documents to counsel for the appellant after retaining a photocopy of the same. 5. Registry shall send back the record to the concerned Court. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu