1 2025:CGHC:54488 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 1041 of 2024 1 - Ravi Agrawal S/o. Shri Vijay Kumar Agrawal Aged About 44 Years R/o. New Road, Near Subhash Chowk, Tehsil And District - Raigarh (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1 - Aalok Rateriya S/o. Shri Sanjay Rateriya Aged About 44 Years R/o. Subhash Chowk, Tehsil And District - Raigarh, Taluka Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.). 2 - Amit Rateriya S/o. Shri Sanjay Rateriya Aged About 42 Years R/o. Subhash Chowk, Tehsil And District - Raigarh, Taluka Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.). 3 - Sanjay Rateriya S/o. Shri Purushottam Rateriya Aged About 67 Years R/o. Subhash Chowk, Tehsil And District - Raigarh, Taluka Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.). 4 - Manish Ahuja S/o. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Ahuja Aged About 35 Years R/o. Chakardhar Nagar, Sindhi Colony, Tehsil And District - Raigarh, Taluka Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) Currently Residing At Pakki Kholi, Sindhi Colony, P.S. Chakardhar Nagar, District - Raigarh (C.G.). 5 - Surendra Temmre S/o. Shri Kaurulal Temmre Aged About 39 Years R/o. Aalok City Mall (Wrongly Mentioned As Maul In Learned Lower Court Order), Tehsil And District - Raigarh, Taluka Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) (Address Mentioned As Per The Learned Lower Court Order) Currently Residing At Village - Butta Hajari, P.S. Barasiwani, District - Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh. 6 - Bodh Ram Yadav S/o. Shri Puni Ram Yadav Aged About 39 2 Years R/o. Kotara Road, Tehsil And District Raigarh, Taluka Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) Currently Residing At Kotara Road, Rajiv Nagar, P.S. Kotwali, District - Raigarh (C.G.). 7 - Purudhar Yadav S/o. Shri Banmali Yadav Aged About 38 Years R/o. Chhatamuda, P.S. Jute Mill Chowki, Tehsil And District - Raigarh, Taluka Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.). ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Samyak Singhai, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For other Respondents : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 07/11/2025 1. This acquittal appeal U/s 419(4) of BNSS has been filed against the judgment dated 16.04.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) in Complaint Case No. 38/2017, whereby the respondents No. 1 to 4 and Respondent No. 6/accused persons have been acquitted for the commission of the offences under Sections 294, 341, 323/34 and 506(Part-2) of the IPC and also against the judgment dated 01.05.2024 passed by the learned JMFC in the same complaint Case No. 38/2017, wherein another accused person respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 7 have been acquitted separately from the aforementioned offences. 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 3 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 case 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), this Appeal stands disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the appellant to file an appeal within a period of 60 days from this order 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 the photocopy of the same. 5. Registry shall send back the record to the concerned Court. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.