1 2026:CGHC:5665-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 66 of 2026 1 - Aasma Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur, Through Director- Ratnesh Jaiswal, Office- Aasma Marketing Pvt. Ltd. In Front Of Schaefer School, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) (Presently R/o Real Apartment, Narmada Nagar Chouk, Bilaspur, Thana Civil Line Bilaspur Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.))(In Appeal Memo And In Impugned Order Address Are Wrongly Mentioned, Here Same Are Corrected) 2 - Aasma Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur Through Director- Smt. Rashmi Jaiswal W/o Ratnesh Jaiswal R/o Front Of Babji Park, Colors Boutique, Ring Road No. 2, Front Of Patrakar Colony, Bilaspur (C.G.) (Presently R/o Real Apartment, Narmada Nagar Chouk, Bilaspur, Thana Civil Line Bilaspur Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.))(In Appeal Memo And In Impugned Order Address Are Wrongly Mentioned, Here Same Are Corrected) ... Petitioners versus Oxford Trade Centre Bilaspur Through- Proprietor- Sayyad Faisal Ali S/o Late- Abrar Ali Aged About 48 Years, R/o Ward No. 5 Tifra, Thana Sirgitti, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Here Present Address Mentioned As Per Appeal Memo Annexure P/3) ---- Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.02.03 18:52:40 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 02/02/2026 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 181/2025, whereby the respondent has been permitted to file a newly drafted appeal, despite serious allegations and prima facie material indicating submission of a forged and fabricated judgment of the Trial Court. The petitioners contend that the impugned order suffers from patent illegality, non-application of mind and amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking for the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs or directions to the Principal District and Session court to initiate enquiry and action under section 379 of BNSS / 340 CRPC against the responsible persons involved to manage the forged order, its implementation and concealment of forgery. 3 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs in the nature of certiorari and set aside the impugned order (Annexure P/7) passed by the 11th Additional Sessions Judge Bilaspur. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners are a company and its Directors, who were arrayed as accused in a complaint filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act bearing NI Act Case No. 1121/2014. Upon completion of trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, by judgment dated 16.07.2025, acquitted the petitioners of all charges. The said judgment was pronounced in open Court in the presence of the parties and their respective counsels and has attained finality insofar as the Trial Court is concerned. 4. Subsequently, the respondent, on the basis of a forged and fabricated copy of the judgment dated 16.07.2025 showing conviction of the petitioners, preferred a criminal appeal under Section 413 of BNSS (earlier Section 372 CrPC), which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 181/2025 before the Court of learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. Upon receipt of the Trial Court record, the petitioners brought to the notice of the Appellate Court the existence of two contradictory judgments of the same date and specifically alleged 4 fraud on the Court by submission of a fabricated judicial record. 5. Despite the serious nature of the allegations and without conducting any enquiry or recording findings on the issue of forgery, the learned Appellate Court, by the impugned order dated 08.12.2025, permitted the respondent to withdraw the earlier appeal and granted liberty to file a newly drafted appeal. According to the petitioners, once fraud on the Court was prima facie established, the only lawful course available was dismissal of the proceedings and initiation of appropriate action under Section 340 CrPC / Section 379 BNSS, and the impugned order granting a fresh opportunity has resulted in abuse of the process of law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur is ex facie illegal and suffers from non-application of mind. It is contended that the respondent had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 181/2025 on the basis of a forged and fabricated copy of the Trial Court judgment dated 16.07.2025, which falsely depicted conviction of the petitioners, whereas in fact the petitioners were acquitted by the learned JMFC, Bilaspur. The moment such fraud on the Court was brought to the notice of the Appellate Court and the original record was examined, the appeal itself stood vitiated and could not have been permitted to survive in any form. 7. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that, once prima facie material disclosed commission of forgery and abuse of the judicial process, the learned Appellate Court was duty-bound to 5 dismiss the appeal and proceed in accordance with law, including consideration of action under Section 340 CrPC/Section 379 BNSS. Granting liberty to withdraw the tainted appeal and file a freshly drafted appeal has the effect of legitimising fraud and defeating the administration of justice. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the impugned order be quashed and appropriate directions be issued to uphold the sanctity of judicial proceedings. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 9. It is not in dispute that upon noticing certain discrepancies in the copy of the judgment annexed with the appeal, the learned Appellate Court called for the original Trial Court record. On examination of the record, the learned Appellate Court found it appropriate to permit the respondent to withdraw the appeal and to file a freshly drafted appeal based on the authentic judgment, in order to enable adjudication of the matter on merits. 10. The power exercised by the learned Appellate Court in granting liberty to file a fresh appeal cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or patently illegal so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At this stage, the allegations of forgery or fabrication involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be conclusively adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The petitioners have not demonstrated any manifest perversity or violation of principles of natural justice in the impugned order. 6 11. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved