High Court of Chhattisgarh affirms Supreme Court’s Celestium Financial ruling, granting victims liberty to re-file acquittal appeals and securing exemption from limitation under the new criminal statutes
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | ACQA No. 335 of 2022 (Smt. Premlata Patel vs. Lakhan Patel) |
| CNR | CGHC010419202022 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Appeal disposed of by granting leave to withdraw and re-file |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Single-Judge bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal |
| Precedent Value | Affirms and applies Supreme Court precedent on victim’s appeal rights |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Right of a victim to appeal against acquittal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC and whether limitation can be insisted |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804), a complainant is entitled to prefer an appeal against an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC read with Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Court may grant leave to withdraw an existing appeal and prescribe a fresh filing period, during which limitation will not be insisted upon. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellant challenged an acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (Complaint Case No. 663/2015). Upon acquittal, the complainant filed this appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC and sought leave to withdraw it and refile under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC (corresponding to Section 413 BNS 2023). The respondent did not insist on the limitation bar. |
| Citations | 2025:CGHC:44679; 2025 INSC 804 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Sessions Judges considering appeals under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts interpreting Section 372 CrPC and Section 413 BNS 2023 appeals |
| Follows | M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. (2025 INSC 804) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The complainant/victim may withdraw an appeal against acquittal and re-file it under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC read with Section 413 BNS 2023.
- The High Court has discretion to grant a fixed period (30 days) for refiling and to exempt the fresh appeal from limitation objections.
- Sessions Judges are directed not to insist upon limitation when deciding a re-filed appeal under this mechanism.
- Counsel can cite this judgment to secure procedural flexibility for victims seeking to challenge acquittals under the new statutory framework.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC lies for a complainant against an order of acquittal.
- The Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial (2025 INSC 804) recognized the victim’s right to appeal acquittals under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponds to Section 372 CrPC and confers the same right in the new criminal code.
- The High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to permit withdrawal of the existing appeal, prescribed a 30-day window to re-file, and directed that limitation not be insisted.
- The respondent’s non-insistence on limitation supported the exercise of judicial discretion.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Relied on the Supreme Court’s Celestium Financial judgment to assert a victim’s right to appeal an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- Requested permission to withdraw the current appeal and re-file under Section 372 proviso corresponding to BNS 2023.
- Sought a direction that limitation not be a bar to the fresh appeal.
Respondent
- Did not oppose withdrawal of the appeal.
- Undertook not to insist on the limitation period if a fresh appeal is filed within 30 days.
Factual Background
In Complaint Case No. 663/2015 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Sarangarh acquitted the accused. The complainant, aggrieved by the acquittal, filed an appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC (ACQA No. 335 of 2022). Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804), the complainant sought leave to withdraw the appeal and re-file it under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC (and Section 413 BNS 2023) without being barred by limitation. The respondent agreed not to enforce any limitation objection. The High Court granted permission to withdraw and provided a 30-day window for refiling, clarifying that limitation would not be insisted upon.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 378(4) CrPC: Empowers a complainant to appeal against an order of acquittal.
- Proviso to Section 372 CrPC: Confirms the victim’s right to appeal an order of acquittal.
- Section 413 BNS 2023: Corresponding provision in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, preserving the right to appeal acquittals.
- High Court’s Inherent Jurisdiction: Authority to grant leave to withdraw and re-file appeals, and to waive limitation where appropriate.
Procedural Innovations
- Endorsement of a formal “withdraw-and-refile” mechanism under Section 378(4)/372 CrPC and Section 413 BNS 2023.
- Judicial clarification that limitation cannot be insisted upon for appeals re-filed under this procedure.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:44679 (High Court of Chhattisgarh)
- 2025 INSC 804 (M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.)