NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.448 of 2018 Kapoorchand, S./o Late Shri Maharathi Sahu, aged about 39 years, Caste-Sahu, R/o Kera Road, Bhatapara, Janjgir, Police Station & Tahsil-Janjgir, Civil & Revenue Digitally signed by District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Appellant/Complainant ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR versus Date:

2025.12.01

17:16:33 +0530 Firu Ram Yadav, S/o Shri Chhedu Ram yadav, aged about Not mentioned, R/o Ward No.8, In front of Bajrang Bali Mandir, Chhota Nahar, Janjgir, Police Station &

Tahsil-Janjgir, Civil & Revenue District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

... Respondent/Accused For Appellant : Shri Parasmani Shrivas, Advocate.

For Respondent : --

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)

Judgment on Board

01/12/2025

1. This is acquittal appeal filed under section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C. by the appellant/complainant against the judgment dated 14.09.2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Criminal Complaint Case No.35/2017 whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1881”). Along with this appeal, an application under section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment was also filed and the said application was allowed by this Court on

14.11.2018 in the aforesaid Acquittal Appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that though leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. has been granted by this Court, but recently the Supreme Court in the matter of M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. reported in 2025 INSC 804 held that the complainant in a complaint filed under section 138 of the Act of 1881 is also a victim as defined in Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 2(y) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the “BNSS”). He submits that the Supreme Court has further held that the complainant in a complaint under section 138 of the Act of 1881 can also be entitled to file an appeal under proviso to section 372 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section

413 of the BNSS.

3. Relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:-

7. xxx xxx xxx 7.1 xxx xxx xxx 7.2 xxx xxx xxx 7.3 xxx xxx xxx 7.4 xxx xxx xxx 7.5 xxx xxx xxx 7.6 xxx xxx xxx

7.7 In the context of offences under the Act, particularly under Section 138 of the said Act, the complainant is clearly the aggrieved party who has suffered economic loss and injury due to the default in payment by the accused owing to the dishonour of the cheque which is deemed to be an offence under that provision. In such circumstances, it would be just, reasonable and in consonance with the spirit of the CrPC to hold that the complainant under the Act also qualifies as a victim within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the CrPC. Consequently, such a complainant ought to be extended the benefit of the proviso to Section 372, thereby enabling him to maintain an appeal against an order of acquittal in his own right without he cheque which is deemed to be an offence under that provision. In such circumstances, it would be just, reasonable and in consonance with the spirit of the CrPC to hold that the complainant under the Act also qualifies as a victim within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the CrPC. Consequently, such a complainant ought to be extended the benefit of the proviso to Section 372, thereby enabling him to maintain an appeal against an order of acquittal in his own right without having to seek special leave under Section 378(4) of the CrPC.t having to seek special leave under Section 378(4) of the CrPC.

7.8 In the case of an offence alleged against an accused under Section 138 of the Act, we are of the view that the complainant is indeed the victim owing to the alleged dishonour of a cheque. In the circumstances, the complainant can proceed as per the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC and he may e