Chattisgarh High Court
Vansh Narayan Tiwari vs Sitaram Alias Sitoram on 21 July, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:34379
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 805 of 2019
Vansh Narayan Tiwari S/o Late Kailash Tiwari, Aged About 49 Years, Occupation-
Advocacy and Agriculture, Presently Residing at Chopdapara, Ambikapur, District Surguja,
Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur)
... Appellant.
Digitally signed by
AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR
DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH
COURT OF
CHHATTISGARH,
o=HIGH COURT OF
versus
CHHATTISGARH,
st=CHATTISGARH,
c=IN Sitaram Alias Sitoram S/o Shri Bukhle Ram Aged About 58 Years Caste- Gond, Occupation-
Date: 2025.07.21
16:54:42 +0530
Agriculture, Resident Of Dhorpur, P.S. And Post- Dhorpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent.
For Appellant : Mr. Karunendra Pratap Singh, Adv on behalf of Mr. B. P.
Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocate.
SB : Hon’ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
Order on Board
21.07.2025
1. This acquittal appeal has been filed under Section 378 (4) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the “CrPC“) challenging the judgment of
acquittal dated 25.09.2019 passed by the Seventh Additional Sessions Judge,
Ambikapur, District Surguja in Criminal Appeal No.54/2019 affirming the
judgment dated 14.03.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Ambikapur, District Surguja in Complaint Case No.327/2012, whereby, the
respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the NI Act“).
2
2. At the outset learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
appellant/complainant has already availed the remedy against the judgment
acquittal of accused by filing an appeal under the proviso of Section 372 of
CrPC before the Additional Sessions Judge. The said proviso clearly stipulates
that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed
by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or
imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to
which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.
Therefore, the acquittal appeal is not maintainable.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that recently in the case of
Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1320, the central issue arose for adjudication was that whether an
appeal would be maintainable under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC
against an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon a private
complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act by treating the complainant in such
a proceeding as a victim within the meaning ascribed to the term under Section
2(wa) of the CrPC, and following was finally held at Para 10:
“10. As already noted, the proviso to Section 372 of the
CrPC was inserted in the statute book only with effect
from 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such insertion
must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a
court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the
victim of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under
the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, irrespective of
whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the victim of
an offence is a complainant, he can still proceed under the
proviso to Section 372 and need not advert to sub-section
(4) of Section 378 of the CrPC.”
3
4. Learned counsel for the respondent also places reliance in the matter of
Mamta Shah Vs. Gurdeep Singh decided by this Court in CRMP
No.592/2019 (Order dated 11.03.2019), wherein, the issue came up for
consideration that whether the complainant is victim as mentioned under
Section 372 proviso of CrPC and following was observed by this Court at Para
3, 4 & 5:-
3. The only issue for consideration of this court is whether
the complainant is victim as mentioned under Section 372
proviso of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
4. In the matter of “Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) through
LRs. Versus State of Karnataka and Others” reported in
AIR 2018 SC 5206, it is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court as
under.
78. As far as the question of the grant of special leave is
concerned, once again, we need not be overwhelmed by
submissions made at the Bar. The language of the proviso
to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. is quite clear, particularly
when it is contrasted with the language of Section 378(4)
of the Cr.P.C. The text of this provision is quite clear and it
is confined to an order of acquittal passed in a case
instituted upon a complaint. The word ‘complaint’ has been
defined in Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. and refers to any
allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate. This
has nothing to do with the lodging or the registration of an
FIR, and therefore it is not at all necessary to consider the
effect of a victim being the complainant as far as the
proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. is concerned.
5. As per law lay down the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
matter of (Mallikarjun Kodgali (supra), the complainant of
complaint case is also victim and, therefore, it is not at all
necessary to consider the effect of a victim being the
complainant.
5. Counsel for the respondent also submits that in the present case, in Criminal
Appeal which was filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, counsel for the
appellant therein had placed reliance in the matter of Dr. Pawan Kumar
Tiwari Vs. State of Chattisgarh decided by this Court in CRR No.1105/2018
& other connected matter (Order dated 27.09.2019). In the said case the
4
Magistrate has awarded conviction and in appeal Additional Sessions Judge
has reversed the same and the High Court held that against such an acquittal
only appeal would be maintainable not revision. However, the fact of the
present case is different in nature as in the present case the Magistrate has
acquitted the accused and the Additional Sessions Judge has also affirmed the
said acquittal, therefore, in the present form the appeal is not maintainable.
6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant would not dispute the
aforesaid legal propositions and seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the
appeal with liberty to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law.
7. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions and principle laid down by this
Court as well as the Supreme Court on the judgments relied upon by the
counsel, this Court is of the view that in the present form this acquittal appeal
is not maintainable. Hence, the present appeal is disposed of reserving the
liberty in favour of the appellant to avail appropriate remedy available to him
in accordance with law.
8. Registry shall return the certified copy of the order/judgment and relevant
documents to counsel for the appellant after retaining its photocopy.
9. Registry shall send back the record to the concerned Court.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge
Ajay.