The High Court of Chhattisgarh clarifies that, following the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in “Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran” (2025), a complainant/victim in a cheque dishonor (Section 138 NI Act) prosecution holds a statutory right to appeal an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The High Court aligns itself with and applies the Supreme Court’s precedent, granting liberty for such appeals with limitation relaxation if filed within specified time.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | ACQA/222/2019 of SMT. KIRTI KURIAN Vs AJAY SINGH CNR CGHC010081832019 |
| Date of Registration | 06-03-2019 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OFF |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR TIWARI |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value | Affirms Supreme Court precedent; binding authority for subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court in “Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804” |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure / Negotiable Instruments Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether the complainant in a Section 138 NI Act prosecution has a statutory right to appeal an acquittal under Section 372 CrPC proviso. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court holds that, pursuant to the recent Supreme Court decision in Celestium Financial (2025), a complainant or victim in a Section 138 NI Act case has a statutory right of appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The appropriate forum for such appeal is the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction from the same court. Liberty is reserved to the appellant to exercise such remedy, with relaxation of limitation if the appeal is filed within 45 days. The High Court has thus aligned with the latest Supreme Court interpretation and given procedural guidance. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | “Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.”, 2025 INSC 804 (Supreme Court, 08.04.2025) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The court applied the Supreme Court’s authoritative interpretation regarding the scope of “victim” and the right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, specifically in the context of Section 138 NI Act prosecutions. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The acquittal appeal was filed by the complainant against the accused’s acquittal for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. During the proceeding, the appellant’s counsel cited the recent Supreme Court judgment affirming the statutory right to appeal for a victim. The appellant sought liberty to pursue the remedy as per the Supreme Court’s directions. |
| Citations | 2025:CGHC:44843; Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 804 (“Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.”) |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and courts outside Chhattisgarh (to the extent they follow Supreme Court precedent) |
| Follows | “Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.” (2025 INSC 804, Supreme Court) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- High Courts must grant the statutory right to appeal against acquittal to complainants/victims under Section 138 NI Act, per the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 372 CrPC.
- If an appeal is filed within the period specified by the High Court, limitation should not be a bar; procedural relaxation is explicitly provided.
- Registry to return all original documents and records for the appellant’s use in further proceedings.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s very recent decision in “Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran” (2025), where the scope and applicability of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC was discussed.
- The Supreme Court had held that a “victim” (including a complainant in Section 138 NI Act cases) has the right to appeal against any order of acquittal, and such appeal is to be preferred before the court to which an appeal would ordinarily lie from a conviction order.
- On this basis, the High Court allowed the appellant liberty to approach the appropriate appellate court, without insisting on limitation, if the appeal is filed within 45 days.
- The High Court thus did not adjudicate on merits, but disposed of the appeal in line with the new authoritative Supreme Court interpretation, providing procedural clarity.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner/Appellant:
- Cited the recent Supreme Court judgment (“Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran”, 2025) on the right of a “victim” to appeal acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- Requested that the appeal be disposed of with liberty to file a fresh appeal before the appropriate court, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision.
Respondent:
- No independently recorded arguments in this order.
Factual Background
The complainant filed a complaint alleging dishonor of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba, acquitted the accused by order dated 11.04.2016 in Criminal Case No. 387/14. The complainant appealed the acquittal. During the appeal, the appellant drew attention to a recent Supreme Court decision clarifying the statutory right of victims/complainants to file appeals against acquittals.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 372 CrPC (Proviso): Discussed and applied in light of the Supreme Court’s interpretation. The proviso provides that a “victim” has a right to appeal against an order of acquittal, and the Supreme Court clarified that this includes complainants in Section 138 NI Act proceedings.
- Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: The underlying offence for which the acquittal was challenged in appeal; no further statutory interpretation recorded in the order.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in this single-judge decision.
Procedural Innovations
- The High Court gave explicit liberty to the appellant to file an appeal in the appropriate forum within 45 days, with a direction that limitation shall not be insisted upon if this timeline is met.
- Registry was directed to return certified original records/documents for use in the new appeal, ensuring procedural facilitation.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – High Court directly and expressly follows Supreme Court precedent (Celestium Financial, 2025).
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:44843 (Chhattisgarh High Court judgment code)
- 2025 INSC 804 (“Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.”, Supreme Court)
- NAFR (Not for Report, as per court note)