1 2025:CGHC:56875 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 191 of 2015 The State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Indar Nagesiya S/o Limbu Nagesiya Aged About 25 Years R/o Raghunathpur, Police Station Lunda District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/State : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondent : None, though served. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Judgment on Board 24/11/2025 Heard. 1. This is an appeal filed under section 378 (1) of Cr.P.C. by the State against the judgment dated 16.04.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 4877/2012 whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused of the charges under Section 279, 338 of IPC and under Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act by giving benefit of doubt. Along with this appeal, an application under section 378(3) 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 29.09.2015 in the aforesaid Acquittal Appeal. Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2025.11.25 10:15:53 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the appellant qualifies as a “victim” within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “Cr.P.C.”), which corresponds to Section 2(y) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNSS”). It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran & Ors., reported in 2025 INSC 804, has held that a complainant is also to be considered a victim. Learned counsel further submits that the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment granted liberty to the petitioner therein to prefer an appeal under the provisions of Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, it is prayed that the appellant in the present matter may be permitted to withdraw the present 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 further submitted that the question of limitation may not be 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 it liberty to prefer the appeal against the impugned judgment dated 16.04.2015 before the concerned Sessions Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. It is clarified that if such an appeal is filed before the concerned Sessions Court within the time prescribed by this Court, it would not insist upon the limitation while deciding the same and will proceed to 3 decide the same in 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/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani