1 2025:CGHC:55393 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2946 of 2025 1 - Kailash Agrawal, S/o Bajranglal Agrwal (Dead) Through Legal Heirs Nil 2 - Chandrakala S/o Late Shri Kailash Agrawal Aged About 67 Years R/o Naila- Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir-Champa, C.G. 3 - Bela Agrawal D/o Late Shri Kailash Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o Naila- Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir-Champa, C.G. 4 - Natwar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Kailash Agrawal Aged About 45 Years R/o Naila- Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir-Champa, C.G. 5 - Sandhya Agrawal D/o Late Shri Kailash Agrawal Aged About 40 Years R/o Naila- Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir-Champa, C.G. 6 - Ravi Takoriya S/o Late Shri Kailash Agrawal Aged About 35 Years R/o Naila- Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir-Champa, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.11.14 11:58:11 +0530 2 Nathuram Kashyap S/o Lalji Kashyap Aged About 57 Years R/o Village- Akaltari, Tehsil- Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir-Champa, C.G. ... Respondent (Cause-title is taken from CIS) For Petitioners : Mr. Yuvraj Singh Chandel, Advocate For Respondent : Not noticed Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 13/11/2025 1. The complainants/petitioners have filed this petition under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. seeking grant of 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 25.10.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Complaint Case No. 73/2022 by which the respondent/accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the complaint filed u/s section 138 of NI Act before the trial Court stood dismissed, the petition filed u/s 419(4) of BNSS can be disposed of in terms of an acquittal appeal and it is no longer necessary to seek special leave to appeal, because the complainants are considered victims and have 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 3 rendered in M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. reported in 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 complaint can also be entitled to file an appeal under proviso to section 372 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 413 of the BNSS, therefore, the case may be disposed of reserving liberty so 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 Cr.M.P/Appeal is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to file an appeal within a period of 60 days from today 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. 6. Registry shall return the certified copy of the impugned judgment/order and relevant documents to counsel for the petitioners after retaining the photocopy of the same. 7. Registry shall send back the record to the concerned Court. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham