1 2025:CGHC:61072 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 91 of 2022 Mona Verma D/o Late Ramdayal Verma, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Sikola Bhatha Premnagar Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Sanjeev Chadda D/o N.C. Chadda, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Mig - 1/2040 Housing Board Bhilainagar, Industrial Area P.S. Jamul, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri P.R. Patankar, Advocate. SB: Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on Board 15/12/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the complainant/victim under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 29/10/2012, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.) in Complaint Case No.108/2012, whereby the complaint was dismissed on non-prosecution. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that initially, the order impugned dated 29/10/2012 passed by the concerned Judicial Magistrate, was questioned in revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Durg where, the same has been held to be not maintainable by virtue of order dated 12/02/2014 in Criminal Revision No.277/2012. 3. Be that as it may, in view of the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., reported in 2025 INSC 804, right to file appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. was discussed and it was held that the “Complainant” under the NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2025.12.15 18:13:24 +0530 2 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 shall have a right to prefer an appeal as a “Victim” against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits further that the Supreme Court in the said matter has reserved the liberty in favour of the petitioner therein to prefer an appeal in the light of the provisions of Section 372 of the Cr.P.C, and, therefore, in the instant case also the appellant may be permitted to withdraw this appeal with liberty to prefer an appeal before the concerned Session Judge under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He further submits that the limitation may not come in the way while deciding the appeal on its merits. 4. In view of the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appellant/victim/complainant is permitted to question the order impugned dated 29/10/2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg in Complaint Case No.108/2012 before the concerned Sessions Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Order accordingly. 5. It is clarified that if such an appeal is preferred before the concerned Session Judge 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 order Annexure-A/1 and relevant documents to counsel for the appellant after obtaining the photocopy of the same and, shall remit the record to the concerned Court forthwith. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE Kamde