SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10377

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay S. Agrawal, J
CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN – Appellant
Versus
Harish Panjwani – Respondent
ACQA No. 192 of 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Dinesh Yadav, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Rajendra Kumar, Advocate

Victims have the right to appeal acquittals under Section 372 Cr.P.C, and limitation shall not apply in such cases.

Headnote:This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment of acquittal dated 02/12/2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, acquitting the Respondent of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The issue raised was whether the victim has the right to appeal against an acquittal, as discussed in the Supreme Court's judgment in M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran. The Court found that the appellant could withdraw the appeal with liberty to file another before the concerned Session Judge, and the limitation would not apply.

Result: The appeal is disposed of.

Table of Content
1. appellant's right to appeal under section 378(4) (Para 1)
2. discussion on appeal rights and limitations (Para 2 , 3)
3. court permits withdrawal of appeal with conditions (Para 4 , 5)
4. finalization of appeal disposition (Para 6 , 7)

SB: Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawa l Judgment on Board

09/09/2025

1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , against the judgment of acquittal dated 02/12/2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.3832/2018, whereby, the Respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 .

2) At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that recently in the judgment dated 08/04/2025 rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., reported in 2025 INSC 804 , right to file appeal under 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. 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 the light of the submissions made herein-above and considering the law declared by the Supreme Court in the said matter, this Court is inclined to permit the appellant to withdraw this appeal by granting him liberty to prefer the appeal against the impugned judgment dated 02/12/2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.3832/2018, before the concerned Sessions Judge within a period of 30 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 judgment 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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top