1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1126 of 2024 1 - Vishnu Prashad Lohia S/o Late Ramgopal Lohia Aged About 71 Years R/o Kampthi Line, Rajandgaon, Distt.- Rajandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Santosh Kumar S/o Late Ramgopal Ji Lohia Aged About 68 Years R/o Kampthi Line, Rajnandgaon, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - Laxman Das S/o Late Ramgopal Ji Lohia Aged About 59 Years R/o Bharkapara, Near Maharstra Bank Rajandgaon, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4 - Laliva Devi Agrawal W/o Shri Ramdev Agrawal Aged About 60 Years R/o 9, Satha Bazar, Indore, Distt.- Indore (M.P.) 5 - Sarla Devi Goyal W/o Shri Dharmesh Agrawal Aged About 59 Years R/o 26, Dilipmandh Colony, Race Course Road, Indore, Distt.- Indore (M.P.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Rajendra Agrawal S/o Late Ishwari Prasad Agrwal Propriter Shri Balaji Salt Suppliers, R/o Ashirwad Colony, In Front Of Mahesh Nagar, Rajandgaon, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate For Respondent : None BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.12.11 11:11:11 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 10/12/2025 1. This petition has been filed by the complainant/petitioners seeking leave to appeal. The prayer made in the acquittal appeal filed along with the petition shows that they seek a direction to set aside the impugned judgment dated 07.03.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon (CG) in Complaint Case No.1984/2018 by which the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the complaint case filed u/s 138 of NI Act before the trial Court stood dismissed, this petition can be disposed of in terms of an acquittal appeal and it is no longer necessary to seek special leave to appeal, because the complainant is considered victim and has statutory right to appeal under the proviso to Section 413 BNSS (Section 372 CrPC). 3. Having considered the submission made by learned counsel, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition in terms of acquittal appeal. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court rendered in M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804 wherein it has been held 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”) and the said complainant can also be entitled to file an appeal under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 413 of the BNSS, the case may be disposed of reserving liberty so 3 as to avail the said remedy of appeal. 5. In view of the aforesaid submission and considering the law declared in the matter of Celestium Financial (supra), this CRMP/Appeal is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to file an appeal within a period of 60 days of this order before the appropriate Court, in accordance with law. It is 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 matter in accordance with law. 6. Registry shall return the certified copy of the impugned judgment/order and relevant documents to counsel for the petitioner after retaining photocopy of the same. 7. The record be sent back forthwith to the concerned Court. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai