1 2026:CGHC:7517 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.45 of 2017 Vipin Sapariya, S/o Chironji Lal Sapariya, aged about 45 years, Occupation Business, R/o Ward No.7, Lormi, P.S. and Tehsil – Lormi, District – Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Lainudas Dhrithlare, S/o Vishalidas, aged about 55 years, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Ghatapani, P.O. Fulwari, P.S. and Tehsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Vaibhav Mittal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Arun Kochar, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Ayushi Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vivek Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 11/02/2026 1. This is an acquittal appeal filed under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. by the complainant/appellant against the order dated 05.01.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lormi, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.849/2015, in which the learned JMFC has acquitted the respondent/accused of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2026.02.11 13:01:13 +0530 2 referred to as the “Act of 1881”). 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 22.02.2017. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that though leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. has been granted by this Court, but recently the Supreme Court in the matter of M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. reported in 2025 INSC 804 held that the complainant in a complaint filed under section 138 of the Act of 1881 is also a victim as defined in Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 2(y) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the “BNSS”). He submits that the Supreme Court has further held that the complainant in a complaint under section 138 of the Act of 1881 can also be entitled to file an appeal under proviso to section 372 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 413 of the BNSS. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case 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 this case also the appellant may be permitted to withdraw this appeal with liberty to prefer an appeal before the concerned Session Judge under Section proviso to 372 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 413 of BNSS. He further submits that the limitation may not come in the way while deciding the appeal on its own merits. 3 4. Counsel for the Respondent does not oppose the submission made by counsel for the Appellant. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. 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 order dated 05.01.2017 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 accordance with law. 7. In that view of the matter, Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned order after obtaining the attested photocopy of the same. 8. The record of the case be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith. 9. In view of the above, the present appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Priyanka