The High Court affirms that, following the Supreme Court’s clarification in M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025), the complainant’s right to appeal an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC lies before the Sessions Judge, not the High Court—including cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This judgment upholds binding Supreme Court precedent and provides a procedural roadmap for future appeals by complainants.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | ACQA/178/2023 of NAVEEN KUMAR GUPTA Vs SAGAR RAM NAYAK |
| CNR | CGHC010202992023 |
| Date of Registration | 26-06-2023 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | WITHDRAWN |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY S. AGRAWAL |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Precedent Value |
|
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court’s judgment in M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure—Appeals by victim or complainant in acquittal cases under NI Act |
| Questions of Law | Proper forum for complainant’s appeal against acquittal in a Section 138 NI Act case |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court, following the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision, holds that the complainant’s right to appeal an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC must be exercised before the Sessions Judge, not the High Court, even in cases under Section 138 NI Act. The Court permits withdrawal of the High Court appeal and grants liberty to file before the Sessions Judge, also clarifying that limitation shall not bar such appeal if filed within the specified time. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 372 CrPC as to appellate forum for a “victim” or complainant |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant challenged an acquittal under Section 138 NI Act by filing an appeal in the High Court. Relying on Supreme Court’s recent decision, the appellant sought withdrawal to file in Sessions Court. Both sides agreed limitation would not be pressed. High Court permitted withdrawal with liberty to file before Sessions Judge and immune from limitation bar if filed within 45 days. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Chhattisgarh; Sessions Courts handling similar appeals |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and litigants in similar matters across India |
| Follows | M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that appeals by complainants against acquittals in matters under Section 138 NI Act must be filed before the Sessions Court, not the High Court, under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- Complainants are granted the liberty to withdraw High Court appeals and file afresh before the appropriate Sessions Court, following Supreme Court directions.
- Express clarification that, in such transferred appeals, limitation will not be insisted upon if filed within the time granted by the High Court.
- The judgment streamlines procedural clarity for complainants pursuing appellate remedies against acquittal orders in cheque bounce cases.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The appellant initially pursued an appeal before the High Court challenging an acquittal in a cheque dishonour case.
- During hearing, counsel invited the High Court’s attention to the Supreme Court’s April 2025 ruling in M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran.
- Supreme Court clarified and held that a “victim”—including a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act matter—must prefer an appeal against acquittal before the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- In light of this binding interpretation, counsel requested withdrawal of the pending High Court appeal with liberty to file it before the Sessions Judge.
- The respondent agreed not to raise objections on limitation if the appeal was filed accordingly.
- The High Court allowed the withdrawal, directed return of documents, and specified that if the appeal is filed before the Sessions Judge within 45 days, it will not be barred by limitation and will be heard on merits.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Drew attention to the Supreme Court’s recent holding that complainants are to appeal acquittal orders before the Sessions Judge as per the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- Sought withdrawal of the present High Court appeal with liberty to file an appeal before the Sessions Judge.
- Requested that limitation not be insisted upon.
Respondent
- Did not oppose the request.
- Submitted that if an appeal is filed before the Sessions Judge, limitation would not be raised as a bar.
Factual Background
The appellant/complainant filed an appeal before the High Court under Section 378(4) of CrPC against an acquittal order dated 29/03/2023 in a cheque bounce case (Section 138 NI Act) issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jashpur. In light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025), which clarified the appellate forum for victims, the appellant sought permission to withdraw the High Court appeal and to file afresh before the Sessions Judge. Both parties agreed that limitation would not be insisted upon.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 372 CrPC (as amended): The Court discussed the proviso granting a “victim” the right to appeal an acquittal, and analyzed the forum for such appeals.
- Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act: Nature of proceedings arising from cheque dishonour and appellate remedies.
- Reference to Section 413 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Parallel provision under the newly enacted criminal procedure law, recognized in the judgment.
- No “reading down” or “reading in”; accepted and applied the statutory language as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
Procedural Innovations
- Permitted withdrawal of the High Court appeal with liberty to file before the correct appellate forum (Sessions Judge).
- Explicitly directed that, in the event of re-filing, limitation shall not be a bar if filed within 45 days.
- Ordered the return of original records to facilitate timely re-filing before the Sessions Judge.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court binding precedent regarding appellate forum for victim/complainant’s acquittal appeal is explicitly followed and applied.
- 📅 Time-Sensitive – Specific window of 45 days granted for re-filing appeal, with an assurance that limitation will not operate as a bar during this period.