1 CGHC010209292026 2026:CGHC:41247 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 806 of 2026 • Lovely Tractors, Through the Proprietor V.C. Pandey, S/o Jhinnu Pandey, aged about 69, R/o Ring Road, Near Polytechnic College, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (Chhattisgarh) Current Address- Banaras Road, Chathirma Road, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (Chhattisgarh) ...Applicant versus • Ganpati Prajapati, S/o Indradev, aged about 54 Years, Caste Kumhar, R/o Village Dumarbhavana, Navapara, Post Poksari, Police Station and Tehsil- Batouli, District- Surguja (Chhattisgarh) ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Vikram Singh Vishwakarma, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 22.09.2026 1. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), challenging the order dated 20.02.2026 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), in Criminal Appeal No.118/2025, whereby AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2026.09.23 15:54:33 +0530 2 the appeal preferred by the applicant/complainant has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant/complainant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the non-applicant/accused, which was registered as Complaint Case No.380/2019 (Lovely Tractors v. Ganpati Prajapati) before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). The said complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution on 28.11.2025, as the applicant and his counsel could not appear before the learned trial Court when the case was called out. He would further submit that on the said date, the applicant/complainant was out of station at Lucknow for the treatment of his grandson and, therefore, could not appear before the learned trial Court, and his counsel also could not appear. On returning from Lucknow on the same day, when the applicant enquired about the case from his counsel, he was informed that the complaint had been dismissed for want of prosecution. 3.1 Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that within the period of limitation, the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No.118/2025 before the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), which was dismissed vide order dated 20.02.2026 solely on the ground that the appeal had been preferred under the wrong provision, i.e., Section 478 of the Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 524 of the BNSS, instead of Section 413 of the BNSS. He would also submit that it is well settled 3 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that merely mentioning an incorrect provision of law should not deprive a party of an opportunity to seek justice, however, the learned Sessions Court has rejected the appeal on the aforesaid technical ground. Hence, learned counsel for the applicant prays that the present criminal revision may be allowed and the applicant/complainant may be granted an opportunity to prefer a fresh appeal under Section 413 of the BNSS against the order dated 28.11.2025, whereby the complaint filed by the applicant/complainant was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-applicant/accused would support the impugned order dated 20.02.2026 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the certified copy of the order sheet dated 28.11.2025 of the learned trial Court shows that Complaint Case No.380/2019 was dismissed for want of prosecution. The appeal (Annexure P-3) preferred by the applicant has been rejected by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), only on the ground that it was filed under the wrong provision. 7. It is settled law that dismissal of a complaint in default under Section 279 of the BNSS entails acquittal of the accused. Once an accused has been acquitted of an offence, the law provides a remedy by way of an appeal against the order of acquittal under Section 413 of the BNSS. In the instant case, the complaint filed by the 4 applicant/complainant was dismissed by the learned trial Court for want of prosecution, which amounts to acquittal. Therefore, the applicant/complainant had rightly preferred Criminal Appeal No.118/2025 before the Appellate Court. Thus, the course adopted by the applicant/complainant was in the right direction, however, the said appeal was rejected only on the technical ground that it had been filed under the wrong provision. 8. It is also settled law that mere mentioning of a wrong provision in a pleading does not invalidate the proceedings or render the same liable to be rejected. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K. Palanisamy v. N. Arumugham and Anr., (2009) 9 SCC 173, has held in paragraph 27 as under:- “27……..Only because a wrong provision was mentioned by the appellant, the same, in our opinion, by itself would not be a ground to hold that the application was not maintainable or that the order passed thereon would be a nullity. It is a well-settled principle of law that mentioning of a wrong provision or non-mentioning of a provision does not invalidate an order if the court and/or statutory authority had the requisite jurisdiction therefor.” 9. Having considered the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and further considering the fact that the applicant/complainant has been deprived of an opportunity of getting his case adjudicated on merits only on a technical ground, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order suffers from illegality. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.02.2026 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, 5 District Surguja (C.G.), in Criminal Appeal No.118/2025 (Lovely Tractors v. Ganpati Prajapati) is hereby set aside. 10. Consequently, the Criminal Revision is allowed. It is directed that if the applicant/complainant (Lovely Tractors) files a fresh memo of appeal under Section 413 of the BNSS within 30 days from today, the concerned Additional Sessions Judge shall restore Criminal Appeal No.118/2025 and decide the same in accordance with law. 11. Record of the concerned trial Court be returned forthwith along with a certified copy of this order. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Akhilesh