1 2025:CGHC:54149 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 1123 of 2024 1 - Ajay Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Brijmohan Agrawal Aged About 48 Years R/o Danipara Tahsil And District- Raigarh ( C.G.) (Wrongly Mentioned As Ajay Agrawal In Impugned Judgment Of Lower Court ) (Complainant). --- Appellant versus 1 - Surath Beer S/o Jayram Beer Aged About 32 Years ( As Per Cause Title Of Leraned Lower Court ), R/o Kandijharan, P.O. - Kapilapur, P.S. Rengali, Tahsil Lakhanpur, District- Jharsuguda, Odisha. (Accused) --- Respondent ACQA No. 88 of 2025 1 - Ajay Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Brijmohan Agrawal Aged About 47 Years R/o Danipara, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Wrongly Mentioned As Ajay Agrawal In Impugned Judgment Of Lower Court) ---Appellant Versus 1 - Surath Beer S/o Jayram Beer Aged About 36 Years (As Per Cause Title Of Learned Lower Court), R/o Kandijharan, P.O. Kapilapur, P.S. Rengali, Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Jharsuguda, Odisha. --- Respondent HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.11.06 17:01:53 +0530 2 For Appellant in both the appeals : Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shahil Singh, Adv. For Respondent in both the appeals : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 06/11/2025 1. ACQA No. 1123/2024 and ACQA No. 88/2025 U/s 419(4) of the BNSS have been filed against the judgment dated 09.09.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh, (C.G.) in Complaint Case Nos. 374/2017 and 37/2017 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 the appellant to file an appeal within a period of 60 days 3 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