1 2026:CGHC:22124 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3328 of 2025 1 - Shubham Agrawal S/o Mohan Lal Agrawal, Aged About 32 Years R/o Surbhi Travels, Kalibadi Chowk, P.S. City Kotwali, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Vaibhav Soni S/o Shri Jawahar Soni, Aged About 33 Years R/o Near Kankali Talab, Prakash Bhawan, In Front Of Deepak Xerox Inside The Gali, Near Kuber General Stores, Kankalipara, Raipur, P.S. Purani Basti, Raipur Dist. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Shri Raza Ali, Advocate For Respondent : None Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 11/05/2026 1. The default pointed out by the Registry is ignored. 2. This Cr.M.P. has been filed for recalling the judgment dated 25.7.2025 passed in Cr.M.P. No.1393 of 2025. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Cr.M.P. Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2026.05.12 17:36:40 +0530 2 No.1393 of 2025 for leave to appeal was filed by applicant/petitioner Shubham Agrawal against the judgment of acquittal dated 22.11.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.189 of 2023 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). He further submits that inadvertently when the said Cr.M.P. came up for hearing before this Court, a submission was made that in light of a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., reported in 2025 INSC 804, an appeal would lie against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Complaint Case No.2298 of 2018 by which the accused/respondent was convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This Court while disposing of the said Cr.M.P. passed the following order: “8. In the light of the submissions made above and also keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court referred to above, this Court is inclined to permit the appellant to withdraw this application by granting him liberty to prefer the appeal against the impugned judgment dated 22.11.2024 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 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.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that due to 3 bona fide mistake the submission was made. In fact, no appeal would be maintainable before the learned Additional Sessions Judge as the appeal has already been preferred by the accused/respondent which was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Cr.A. No.189 of 2023. Therefore, the order passed in the said Cr.M.P. may be recalled. 5. Be that as it may, from perusal of the material available it appears that this Court while deciding the aforesaid Cr.M.P. has permitted the applicant to file an appeal, but, such appeal would not be maintainable. 6. In view of the above, the order dated 25.7.2025 passed in Cr.M.P. No.1393 of 2025 is recalled and the said Cr.M.P. is restored to its original number. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after passing of the order dated 25.7.2025 passed in Cr.M.P. No.1393 of 2025, certified copy of the impugned order dated 22.11.2024 has already been taken back by the applicant. Thus, he may be permitted to place the said certified copy on the record of Cr.M.P. No.1393 of 2025. 8. Permission is granted. 9. The instant Cr.M.P. is disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Gopal