In a significant development at the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Justice Radhakishan Agrawal on Tuesday permitted Narendra Singh Rajput to withdraw his pending acquittal appeal against Roopram. The case stemmed from a cheque bounce dispute under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Background
The matter has a long history. Back in July 2012, the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Durg acquitted Roopram of charges related to dishonour of cheque. Rajput, dissatisfied with the acquittal, approached the High Court under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which allows complainants to challenge acquittals with prior leave of the court. The leave was granted in November 2012, and the appeal remained pending for more than a decade.
What changed recently was a ruling by the Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804). The apex court clarified that a complainant in a cheque bounce case is also legally a ''victim'' under the CrPC, giving him the right to appeal an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372, without needing the High Court's special leave.
Read Also : Calcutta High Court Rejects Plea Against Municipal Action, Stresses Citizens Cannot Evade Public Obligations
Court's Observations
During the hearing, counsel for Rajput relied heavily on the Supreme Court's pronouncement. He argued that, in light of the ruling, the appellant should be allowed to pursue his case afresh before the Sessions Court as a victim, rather than continuing under the older, restrictive route of Section 378(4).
''The complainant in a cheque dishonour case suffers real economic loss, and is therefore no less than a victim. He should not be denied the right to appeal,'' the bench observed while considering the plea.
Interestingly, counsel for the respondent, Roopram, did not oppose the request. This non- contestation made it easier for the court to focus squarely on the applicability of the Supreme Court's directions.
Decision
After hearing both sides, Justice Agrawal permitted Rajput to withdraw the present High Court appeal. The order grants him liberty to file a fresh appeal before the concerned Sessions Judge within 60 days from receiving a copy of the order. Importantly, the court clarified that the Sessions Judge should not dismiss such an appeal on grounds of limitation, but decide it on merits.
The bench concluded by directing the Registry to return certified copies of the acquittal judgment to Rajput after keeping an attested photocopy, and sending back the trial court records. With that, the 13- year- old appeal was formally disposed of.
Case Tittle : Narendra Singh Rajput vs Roopram
Case Number : ACQA No. 222 of 2012
