Chhattisgarh High Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., permits withdrawal of a criminal appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC, clarifies complainant’s right to appeal an acquittal order under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC before the Sessions Judge, and relaxes limitation for re-filing. This order affirms and implements recent Supreme Court precedent, with direct procedural significance for negotiable instruments cases and criminal procedure practice.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | ACQA/282/2022 of PRAKASH KUMAR Vs GUNJAN PATHAK |
| CNR | CGHC010382912022 |
| Date of Registration | 22-11-2022 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | WITHDRAWN |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY AGRAWAL |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction as to procedural route for appeals against acquittal by complainants in 138 NI Act matters |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court’s judgment in M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804 |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure — Cheque Dishonour (Negotiable Instruments Act) and Appellate Procedure |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that, following the Supreme Court’s interpretation in M/s Celestium Financial, the complainant (victim) has the right under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC to appeal an acquittal order passed by a Magistrate in a cheque dishonour case before the Sessions Judge, and not the High Court. Therefore, the present appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC was withdrawn, with liberty granted to refile before the Sessions Judge within 45 days. The Sessions Judge is directed not to apply limitation strictly, given the procedural clarification and parties’ consent. This preserves the right of appeal in the appropriate forum and ensures that recent Supreme Court law is applied uniformly. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The court’s order is grounded on the dictum of the Supreme Court clarifying the routes and rights of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. Both parties recognized this authority. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellant/complainant had earlier filed a criminal appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC before the High Court challenging an acquittal of the respondent/accused in a cheque dishonour (Section 138 NI Act) case by the Magistrate. Citing new Supreme Court precedent, the appellant sought withdrawal of the appeal with liberty to approach the Sessions Judge as the proper forum. The respondent did not object and agreed to not raise limitation if a fresh appeal was filed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh regarding procedural route for complainant’s appeal against acquittal in cheque dishonour cases |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts on harmonising appellate forum restrictions post-Celestium Financial |
| Follows | M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Withdrawal and re-filing of appeals allowed to align with Supreme Court’s clarified appellate forum under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- For 138 NI Act acquittals, complainants (victims) must appeal to the Sessions Judge, not the High Court.
- Limitation will not be insisted upon if a party, acting on earlier procedural understanding, now files before the appropriate forum post-SC clarification.
- Advocates must check recent Supreme Court pronouncements about appellate jurisdiction before filing or defending appeals.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court acknowledged the legal position clarified by the Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial, which settled that appeals by a complainant against acquittal (in 138 NI Act matters) lie before the Sessions Judge under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, not the High Court under Section 378(4) CrPC.
- Given this clarification and with both parties’ concurrence (including respondent’s waiver of limitation objections), the court permitted withdrawal of the current High Court appeal and granted liberty to refile before the Sessions Judge within 45 days.
- The High Court expressly directed that limitation should not be a ground to deny a hearing on merits for any such refiling, ensuring that procedural fairness is maintained and recent precedent is implemented effectively.
- The broader rationale is to align procedural steps with the Supreme Court’s definitive interpretation of the applicable law and thereby avoid unnecessary technical dismissals.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. clarified that appeals by victims against acquittal should be filed before the Sessions Judge under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- Requested withdrawal of the present High Court appeal with liberty to file afresh in the Sessions Court within the prescribed time.
- Sought clarification that limitation should not bar consideration of the appeal on merits.
Respondent
- No objection to withdrawal of the appeal.
- Agreed not to raise limitation as a bar if a fresh appeal is filed before the Sessions Judge.
Factual Background
The appellant had filed a complaint leading to the prosecution of the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging cheque dishonour. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, acquitted the respondent in Complaint Case No.1861/2017 through an order dated 10/08/2022. The appellant/complainant filed an appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC challenging the acquittal before the High Court. In light of the intervening Supreme Court judgment clarifying proper appellate forum, the appellant sought to withdraw and refile his appeal before the appropriate Sessions Judge.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 378(4) CrPC: Originally used by complainants to appeal acquittal to the High Court.
- Proviso to Section 372 CrPC: After the Supreme Court’s interpretation, victims (including complainants in 138 NI Act cases) are to file appeals against acquittal before the Sessions Judge.
- Corresponding provision in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Section 413 referenced as analogous to the CrPC proviso.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in this single-judge bench order.
Procedural Innovations
- The court permitted withdrawal of a pending High Court appeal with liberty to refile in the Sessions Court, following a Supreme Court clarification, and expressly protected the appellant against limitation defences in the interest of justice and procedural propriety.
- Registry was directed to promptly return certified documents and remit records to the appropriate court.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.
- 📅 Time-Sensitive – When limitation issues are specifically dealt with and flexibility is allowed in view of superseding precedent.