CRM-A-1334 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 268 YES BANK LTD THROUGH ITS ASSIGNEE INDIABULLS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY SURAJ HAJARI CHAUHAN CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. for the RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The present application has been filed under Section with Section 413 of BNSS passed by the Court of Section 25(1C) of Payment and Settlement System Act, 2007 applicant-petitioner was dismis accused-respondent stood acquitted of the offence alleged in the complaint. 2. The limited question arising for consideration in the present proceedings is whether an appeal against an order of acquittal passed in complaint case under Section 1334-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision: YES BANK LTD THROUGH ITS ASSIGNEE INDIABULLS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY Versus SURAJ HAJARI CHAUHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) The present application has been filed under Section with Section 413 of BNSS seeking to challenge the order dated passed by the Court of JMIC, Gurugram, 25(1C) of Payment and Settlement System Act, 2007 petitioner was dismissed for want of prosecution, as such the respondent stood acquitted of the offence alleged in the complaint. The limited question arising for consideration in the present proceedings is whether an appeal against an order of acquittal passed in complaint case under Section 25(1C) of Payment and Settlement System Act, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-1334-2025 Date of decision: 26.02.2026 YES BANK LTD THROUGH ITS ASSIGNEE INDIABULLS ASSET ….Appellant ....Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL , Advocate The present application has been filed under Section 419(4) read seeking to challenge the order dated 14.05.2025 whereby, the complaint under 25(1C) of Payment and Settlement System Act, 2007, filed by the sed for want of prosecution, as such the respondent stood acquitted of the offence alleged in the complaint. The limited question arising for consideration in the present proceedings is whether an appeal against an order of acquittal passed in a 25(1C) of Payment and Settlement System Act, Appellant ....Respondent 419(4) read 14.05.2025 whereby, the complaint under , filed by the sed for want of prosecution, as such the The limited question arising for consideration in the present a 25(1C) of Payment and Settlement System Act, GURPREET 2026.02.28 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-A-1334 2007 can be entertained under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 413 of BNSS) at the instance of the complainant? 3. The issue is no longer Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. 2025 INSC 804: 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208’, the Hon’ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that a complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act, qualifies as a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) of to the dishonour of a cheque. Consequently, such a complainant is entitled to pursue an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., without the requirement of seekin 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under: “8. The right to prefer an appeal is no doubt a statutory right and the right to prefer an appeal by an accused against a conviction is not merely a statuto construed to be a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. If that is so, then the right of a victim of an offence to prefer an appeal cannot be equated with the right of the State or the complainant to prefe statutory rigours for filing of an appeal by the State or by a complainant against an order of acquittal cannot be read into the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC so as to restrict the right of a victim to file an appeal on the gro when none exists. 9. In the circumstances, we find that Section 138 of the Act being in the nature of a penal provision by a deeming fiction against an accused who is said to have committed an offence under the said provision, if ac the said offence, namely, the person who is entitled to the proceeds of a cheque which has been dishonoured, in terms of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, as a victim. As already noted, a victim of an such a case, an appeal can be preferred either under the proviso to Section 372 or under Section 378 by such a victim. In the absence of the proviso to Section 372, a victim of an offence could not have filed an appe complainant, in which event he could maintain an appeal if 1334-2025 2 can be entertained under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 413 of BNSS) at the instance of the complainant? The issue is no longer res integra. Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. 2025 INSC 804: 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208’, the Hon’ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that a complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act, qualifies as a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C., being the person who suffers financial loss due to the dishonour of a cheque. Consequently, such a complainant is entitled to pursue an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., without the requirement of seekin 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under: 8. The right to prefer an appeal is no doubt a statutory right and the right to prefer an appeal by an accused against a conviction is not merely a statuto construed to be a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. If that is so, then the right of a victim of an offence to prefer an appeal cannot be equated with the right of the State or the complainant to prefe statutory rigours for filing of an appeal by the State or by a complainant against an order of acquittal cannot be read into the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC so as to restrict the right of a victim to file an appeal on the gro when none exists. 9. 9. In the circumstances, we find that Section 138 of the Act being in the nature of a penal provision by a deeming fiction against an accused who is said to have committed an offence under the said provision, if acquitted, can be proceeded against by a victim of the said offence, namely, the person who is entitled to the proceeds of a cheque which has been dishonoured, in terms of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, as a victim. As already noted, a victim of an offence could also be a complainant. In such a case, an appeal can be preferred either under the proviso to Section 372 or under Section 378 by such a victim. In the absence of the proviso to Section 372, a victim of an offence could not have filed an appeal as such, unless he was also a complainant, in which event he could maintain an appeal if can be entertained under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 413 of BNSS) at the instance of the complainant? res integra. In ‘M/s Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. 2025 INSC 804: 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208’, the Hon’ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that a complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act, qualifies as a ‘victim’ under the Cr.P.C., being the person who suffers financial loss due to the dishonour of a cheque. Consequently, such a complainant is entitled to pursue an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., without the requirement of seeking special leave under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under:- 8. The right to prefer an appeal is no doubt a statutory right and the right to prefer an appeal by an accused against a conviction is not merely a statutory right but can also be construed to be a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. If that is so, then the right of a victim of an offence to prefer an appeal cannot be equated with the right of the State or the complainant to prefer an appeal. Hence, the statutory rigours for filing of an appeal by the State or by a complainant against an order of acquittal cannot be read into the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC so as to restrict the right of a victim to file an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein, 9. In the circumstances, we find that Section 138 of the Act being in the nature of a penal provision by a deeming fiction against an accused who is said to have committed an offence under the said quitted, can be proceeded against by a victim of the said offence, namely, the person who is entitled to the proceeds of a cheque which has been dishonoured, in terms of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, as a victim. As already offence could also be a complainant. In such a case, an appeal can be preferred either under the proviso to Section 372 or under Section 378 by such a victim. In the absence of the proviso to Section 372, a victim of an offence al as such, unless he was also a complainant, in which event he could maintain an appeal if can be entertained under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. (now M/s Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. 2025 INSC 804: 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208’, the Hon’ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that a complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act, qualifies as a ‘victim’ under the Cr.P.C., being the person who suffers financial loss due to the dishonour of a cheque. Consequently, such a complainant is entitled to pursue an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the g special leave under Section 8. The right to prefer an appeal is no doubt a statutory right and the right to prefer an appeal by an accused against a ry right but can also be construed to be a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. If that is so, then the right of a victim of an offence to prefer an appeal cannot be equated with the right of r an appeal. Hence, the statutory rigours for filing of an appeal by the State or by a complainant against an order of acquittal cannot be read into the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC so as to restrict the right unds mentioned therein, 9. In the circumstances, we find that Section 138 of the Act being in the nature of a penal provision by a deeming fiction against an accused who is said to have committed an offence under the said quitted, can be proceeded against by a victim of the said offence, namely, the person who is entitled to the proceeds of a cheque which has been dishonoured, in terms of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, as a victim. As already offence could also be a complainant. In such a case, an appeal can be preferred either under the proviso to Section 372 or under Section 378 by such a victim. In the absence of the proviso to Section 372, a victim of an offence al as such, unless he was also a complainant, in which event he could maintain an appeal if GURPREET 2026.02.28 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-A-1334 special leave to appeal had been granted by the High Court and if no such special leave was granted then his appeal would not be maintainable at all. On the other h offence, who may or may not be the complainant, proceeds under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, then in our view, such a victim need not seek special leave to appeal from the High Court. In other words, the victim of an offe prefer an appeal, inter alia, against an order of acquittal in terms of the proviso to Section 372 without seeking any special leave to appeal from the High Court only on the grounds mentioned therein. A person who is a complain 200 of the CrPC who complains about the offence committed by a person who is charged as an accused under Section 138 of the Act, thus has the right to prefer an appeal as a victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC. 10. As alre 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 discuss 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 of Section 378 of the CrPC.” 4. In the light of the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and considering the view taken by this Court in subsequent cases including in Rajat Deep Versus as also the guiding principle that procedural rule must serve and not obstruct the course of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct concerned Sessions Judge that the present appeal be treated instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to an appropriate Court for disposal on merits. 5. The concerned Appellate Court shall proceed to decide the appeal expeditiously. 1334-2025 3 special leave to appeal had been granted by the High Court and if no such special leave was granted then his appeal would not be maintainable at all. On the other h offence, who may or may not be the complainant, proceeds under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, then in our view, such a victim need not seek special leave to appeal from the High Court. In other words, the victim of an offe prefer an appeal, inter alia, against an order of acquittal in terms of the proviso to Section 372 without seeking any special leave to appeal from the High Court only on the grounds mentioned therein. A person who is a complain 200 of the CrPC who complains about the offence committed by a person who is charged as an accused under Section 138 of the Act, thus has the right to prefer an appeal as a victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC. 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 of Section 378 of the CrPC.” In the light of the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and considering the view taken by this Court in subsequent cases including in Versus Prince, CRM-A-1320-MA as also the guiding principle that procedural rule must serve and not obstruct the course of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct concerned Sessions Judge that the present appeal be treated instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to an appropriate Court for disposal on merits. The concerned Appellate Court shall proceed to decide the appeal expeditiously. special leave to appeal had been granted by the High Court and if no such special leave was granted then his appeal would not be maintainable at all. On the other hand, if the victim of an offence, who may or may not be the complainant, proceeds under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, then in our view, such a victim need not seek special leave to appeal from the High Court. In other words, the victim of an offence would have the right to prefer an appeal, inter alia, against an order of acquittal in terms of the proviso to Section 372 without seeking any special leave to appeal from the High Court only on the grounds mentioned therein. A person who is a complainant under Section 200 of the CrPC who complains about the offence committed by a person who is charged as an accused under Section 138 of the Act, thus has the right to prefer an appeal as a victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC. ady 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 ion, 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 proviso to Section 372 and need not advert to sub-section (4) In the light of the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and considering the view taken by this Court in subsequent cases including in MA-2016, decided on 21.07.2025, as also the guiding principle that procedural rule must serve and not obstruct the course of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct concerned Sessions Judge that the present appeal be treated as one authoritatively instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to an appropriate Court for disposal on merits. The concerned Appellate Court shall proceed to decide the special leave to appeal had been granted by the High Court and if no such special leave was granted then his appeal would not and, if the victim of an offence, who may or may not be the complainant, proceeds under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, then in our view, such a victim need not seek special leave to appeal from the High Court. nce would have the right to prefer an appeal, inter alia, against an order of acquittal in terms of the proviso to Section 372 without seeking any special leave to appeal from the High Court only on the grounds ant under Section 200 of the CrPC who complains about the offence committed by a person who is charged as an accused under Section 138 of the Act, thus has the right to prefer an appeal as a victim under the ady 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 ion, 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 section (4) In the light of the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and considering the view taken by this Court in subsequent cases including in , as also the guiding principle that procedural rule must serve and not obstruct the course of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct concerned as one authoritatively instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same The concerned Appellate Court shall proceed to decide the GURPREET 2026.02.28 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-A-1334 6. The Registry is the complete paper the concerned Sessions Judge forthwith. 7. Disposed of accordingly. 26.02.2026 Gurpreet 1334-2025 4 The Registry is directed to transmit this order along with copy of the complete paper-book and return the Trial Court record, if any received, to the concerned Sessions Judge forthwith. Disposed of accordingly. i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No directed to transmit this order along with copy of book and return the Trial Court record, if any received, to (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No directed to transmit this order along with copy of book and return the Trial Court record, if any received, to (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) GURPREET 2026.02.28 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.