1 2026:CGHC:22595 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 42 of 2017 Suresh Jain Parakh S/o Late Shri Ranulal Jain, Aged About 45 Years R/o Nayapara, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Om Prakash Sharma S/o Late Shri Moolchand Sharma, Aged About 30 Years R/o H. No.61, Brijraj Nagar, Aganpur, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Jagdalpur, Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Rajendra Tripathi appears along with Shri Anuroop Panda, Advocates. For Respondent No.2/State : Mrs. Avelin Juneja Gambhir, P.L. SB: Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on Board 13/05/2026 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 30/08/2016, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bastar place Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Complaint Case No.859/2011, whereby the complaint was dismissed on non-prosecution and acquit the respondent/accused. 2. Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in the light 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, where the right to file appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. was discussed and it NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2026.05.13 16:42:28 +0530 2 was held that the “Complainant” under the 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. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in case an appeal is filed, the respondent will not insist upon the limitation. 4. In view of the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appellant/victim/complainant is permitted to question the impugned order dated 30/08/2016, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bastar place Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Complaint Case No.859/2011 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