CRM-A-2351-MA 225 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Jagmal Singh Suresh Kumar & CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. Wazir Singh None MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. The for grant of leave to file an appeal 11.09.2017 passed by learned Judicial trial Court has discharged 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506/120 2. The limited question which arises for consideration in the present proceedings is with regard to the maintainability of an appeal against an order of discharge passed in a co 3. This Court finds that in the present complaint case, after the summoning of the accused and recording of pre discharged by the learned Trial Court, and against the said order of discharge, the present appeal has been preferred by the complainant before this Court. 4. Upon consideration, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is an order of discharge maintainable against such an order and the appropriate remedy available to the complainant is by way of revision. Further, this court in MA-2017 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : VERSUS Suresh Kumar & Others HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Wazir Singh, Advocate for the appellant None for the respondent. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) The appellant has filed the present application Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to file an appeal against the impugned judgment dated passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, discharged the respondents-accused in a complaint under Section 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506/120-B. The limited question which arises for consideration in the present proceedings is with regard to the maintainability of an appeal against an order of passed in a complaint case. This Court finds that in the present complaint case, after the summoning of the accused and recording of pre discharged by the learned Trial Court, and against the said order of discharge, the present appeal has been preferred by the complainant before this Court. Upon consideration, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is an order of discharge and not an order of acquittal, and therefore, no appeal is maintainable against such an order and the appropriate remedy available to the complainant is by way of revision. Further, this court in -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-2351-MA-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision : 02.02.2026 ....Appellant ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU appellant. has filed the present application Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment dated Magistrate 1st Class, Karnal whereby, the cused in a complaint under Section The limited question which arises for consideration in the present proceedings is with regard to the maintainability of an appeal against an order of This Court finds that in the present complaint case, after the summoning of the accused and recording of pre-charge evidence, the accused were discharged by the learned Trial Court, and against the said order of discharge, the present appeal has been preferred by the complainant before this Court. Upon consideration, this Court is of the view that the impugned order and not an order of acquittal, and therefore, no appeal is maintainable against such an order and the appropriate remedy available to the complainant is by way of revision. Further, this court in Atul Kashyap v. Saroj has filed the present application Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment dated whereby, the cused in a complaint under Sections The limited question which arises for consideration in the present proceedings is with regard to the maintainability of an appeal against an order of This Court finds that in the present complaint case, after the charge evidence, the accused were discharged by the learned Trial Court, and against the said order of discharge, the Upon consideration, this Court is of the view that the impugned order and not an order of acquittal, and therefore, no appeal is maintainable against such an order and the appropriate remedy available to the Atul Kashyap v. Saroj TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.06 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-2351-MA Bala and another, CRR No. 2140 of 201 held that discharge does not amount to acquittal. Revision against discharge order is maintainable before the Sessions Court or High Court under revisional jurisdiction. Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C., which applies to acquitta discharge orders. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no objection if the present appeal is treated as a revision petition and the matter is sent back to the learned Sessions Court with law. 6. In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of with a direction that the matter be sent to the learned Sessions Court revision petition. It is further clarified that the learned Sessions Judge shall be at liberty to entertain the matter and either decide the same himself the same to any other competent Court in accordance with law. 7. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. February 02, 202 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable MA-2017 (O&M) Bala and another, CRR No. 2140 of 2013 (O&M) Decided on held that discharge does not amount to acquittal. Revision against discharge order is maintainable before the Sessions Court or High Court under revisional Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C., which applies to acquitta discharge orders. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no objection if the present appeal is treated as a revision petition and the matter is sent back to the learned Sessions Court, concerned In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of with a direction that the matter be sent to the learned Sessions Court revision petition. It is further clarified that the learned Sessions Judge shall be at liberty to entertain the matter and either decide the same himself the same to any other competent Court in accordance with law. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -2- 3 (O&M) Decided on- 03.03.2014 held that discharge does not amount to acquittal. Revision against discharge order is maintainable before the Sessions Court or High Court under revisional Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C., which applies to acquittal, is not applicable to At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no objection if the present appeal is treated as a revision petition and the matter is sent for being dealt with in accordance In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of with a direction that the matter be sent to the learned Sessions Court, concerned to be treated as a revision petition. It is further clarified that the learned Sessions Judge shall be at liberty to entertain the matter and either decide the same himself/herself or entrust the same to any other competent Court in accordance with law. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE has held that discharge does not amount to acquittal. Revision against discharge order is maintainable before the Sessions Court or High Court under revisional l, is not applicable to At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no objection if the present appeal is treated as a revision petition and the matter is sent r being dealt with in accordance In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of with a direction to be treated as a revision petition. It is further clarified that the learned Sessions Judge shall be at or entrust All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.06 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document