1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 478 of 2018 Arvind Kumar S/o Late Goverdhan Lal Banjare, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Chandi Chowk, Mathpara, Police Station- Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Onima Singh W/o Naresh Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Qt. No. 178-A, Ruabandha Sector, Police Station- Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Naveen Shukla, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Smita Jha, Advocate For Respondent : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 13/11/2025 1. This is an acquittal appeal filed under section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C. by the complainant against the judgment dated 03.08.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 319/2010 whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused of the charge under Section 418 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”). Along with this appeal, an application under section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment was also filed and the said application was allowed by this Court on 29.11.2018. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant qualifies as a PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.11.13 15:07:25 +0530 2 “victim” within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”), which corresponds to Section 2(y) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the BNSS”). It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran & Others, reported in 2025 INSC 804, has held that a complainant is also to be considered a victim. Learned counsel further submits that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid judgment, granted liberty to the petitioner therein to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, it is prayed that the appellant in the present case may also be permitted to withdraw this appeal with liberty to prefer an appeal before the competent Sessions Judge under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 413 of the BNSS. It is also submitted that the question of limitation may not be treated as a bar while adjudicating the appeal on its merits. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the documents on record. 4. Considering the submissions made herein above and also in the light of judgment laid down by the Supreme Court referred to above, this Court is inclined to permit the appellant to withdraw this appeal by granting him liberty to prefer the appeal against the impugned judgment dated 03.08.2017 before the concerned Sessions Judge within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Order accordingly. It is clarified that if such an appeal is filed before the concerned Session Judge within the time prescribed by this Court, it would not insist upon the limitation while deciding the same and will proceed to decide the same in 3 accordance with law. 5. In that view of the matter, Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned judgment after obtaining the attested photocopy of the same. 6. The record of the case be sent back to the concerned J.M.F.C. forthwith. 7. In view of the above, the present appeal stands disposed of. Sd/-d/- /-- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Prakash/Akhilesh