1 2026:CGHC:4819 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2618 of 2024 Shahzade Ahmed S/o Abdul Hameed Aged About 61 Years R/o Afroj Bada, Modahapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus Vasudev Keshwani Profession Business, R/o Proprietor Bharat Boot House, Nagar Palika Complex Makai Chowk, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Anamika Jain, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Tridib Bhattacharya, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 28/01/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 419(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the judgment dated 30.04.2024, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District Raipur, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 2044/2015, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that recently in judgment dated 08.04.2025, rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804, right to file appeal under VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.01.29 19:38:55 +0530 2 proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. was discussed and it was held that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal 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. He further submits that the case may be disposed of reserving liberty so as to avail the said remedy. 3. In view of the aforesaid submissions and considering the law declared in the matter of Celestium Financial (supra), this petition stands disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to file an appeal within a period of 45 days from this order before the appropriate Court, in accordance with law. It is further made clear that if such an appeal is filed before the concerned Court within the time given by this Court along with an application for condonation of delay, it would not insist upon the limitation, while deciding the same and will proceed to decide the same in accordance with law. 4. Registry shall return the certified copy of the judgment and relevant documents to counsel for the petitioner after retaining its photocopy. 5. Registry shall send back the record to the concerned Court. 6. Accordingly, this CRMP is disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved