1 2026:CGHC:7562 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 466 of 2018 Taruna Singh, W/o Sanjay Singh, Aged About 42 Years, Presently Residing At 676 Sector-2, Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, P.S. D.D. Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, ... Applicant Versus 1 - Sanjay Singh S/o Late Gopal Singh, Aged About 48 Years, R/o- H.No. C- 9, Sector-1 Dewendra Nagar, Tahsil and District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Kushum Singh W/o Late Gopal Singh Aged About 65 Years, R/o- Dewendra Nagar Tahsil and District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate For Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Raj Sengale, Advocate on behalf of Mr. N. Naha Ray, Advocate For State/Respondent No.4 : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 10.02.2026 1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred under Sections 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the appellant/complainant, PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2026.02.11 14:06:27 +0530 2 calling in question the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 31.05.2018 passed by the learned First Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No.21/2018, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant/complainant against the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, wherein the accused – Sanjay Singh was acquitted of the charge under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, was dismissed as not maintainable. The learned Appellate Court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that since the case was instituted on the basis of a private complaint, the word “victim” used in the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. does not include a complainant, and that in such cases, the complainant has the right to appeal against an order of acquittal only under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. Hence, holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal, the learned Appellate Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant qualifies as a “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 3 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. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents do not oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the Appellant. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. 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 liberty to prefer the appeal against the impugned order dated 31.05.2018 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 decide the same in accordance with law. 6. In that view of the matter, Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned order after obtaining the attested photocopy of 4 the same. 7. The record of the case be sent back to the concerned Sessions Court forthwith. 8. In view of the above, the present appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Prakash