CRA-AS-234-2017 221 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Mukesh Takkar Mange Ram CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. Lakshya Saini Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate for the Mr. N.C.Kinra, Advocate for the respondent. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. The applicant has filed the present application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C for grant of leave to file an appeal against the impugned judgment dated 19.01.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Rohtak, whereby the trial Court has acquitted t of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Vide order dated 3. The limited question which arises for consideration in the present proceedings is with regard to acquittal passed in a complaint case and, more particularly, as to whether such an appeal can be entertained under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Procedure at the instance of the comp 4. This Court has carefully considered the statutory scheme as contained in Sections 2(wa), 372 and 378 of the Cr.P.C. as also the object sought to be achieved by insertion of the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. The said proviso 2017 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRA Date of Decision : VERSUS HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Lakshya Saini, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate for the Mr. N.C.Kinra, Advocate for the respondent. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) The applicant has filed the present application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C for grant of leave to file an appeal against the impugned judgment dated 19.01.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Rohtak, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the respondents-accused in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Vide order dated 13.12.2017, leave to appeal was granted. The limited question which arises for consideration in the present proceedings is with regard to the maintainability of an appeal against an order of acquittal passed in a complaint case and, more particularly, as to whether such an appeal can be entertained under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Procedure at the instance of the complainant. This Court has carefully considered the statutory scheme as contained in Sections 2(wa), 372 and 378 of the Cr.P.C. as also the object sought to be achieved by insertion of the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. The said proviso -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-AS-234-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision : 02.02.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.C.Kinra, Advocate for the respondent. The applicant has filed the present application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C for grant of leave to file an appeal against the impugned judgment dated 19.01.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Rohtak, whereby the accused in a complaint under Section 138 .2017, leave to appeal was granted. The limited question which arises for consideration in the present the maintainability of an appeal against an order of acquittal passed in a complaint case and, more particularly, as to whether such an appeal can be entertained under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal This Court has carefully considered the statutory scheme as contained in Sections 2(wa), 372 and 378 of the Cr.P.C. as also the object sought to be achieved by insertion of the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. The said proviso The applicant has filed the present application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C for grant of leave to file an appeal against the impugned judgment dated 19.01.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Rohtak, whereby the accused in a complaint under Section 138 The limited question which arises for consideration in the present the maintainability of an appeal against an order of acquittal passed in a complaint case and, more particularly, as to whether such an Criminal This Court has carefully considered the statutory scheme as contained in Sections 2(wa), 372 and 378 of the Cr.P.C. as also the object sought to be achieved by insertion of the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. The said proviso TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.06 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-AS-234-2017 confers a substa 2(wa) Cr.P.C., against an order of acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence or imposition of inadequate compensation. 5. The issue is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, reported as 2025 INSC 804 : 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act qualifies as a “victim” within the meaning of on account of dishonour of cheque. It has further been held that such a is entitled to maintain an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Cr.P.C. and that Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. 6. Applying the aforesaid legal position to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the applicant, being the complainant and having suffered loss on account of the alleged offence, squarely falls within the definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. Consequently, the right to prefer an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. stands vested in the applicant. 7. In view of Court in M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran position that a complainant acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., this Court deems it appropriate to treat the present application as an appeal instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. 8. Accordingly, the present appeal is ordered to be remitte of learned Sessions Judge concerned with a direction to treat the same as having 2017 (O&M) confers a substantive right of appeal upon a “victim”, as defined under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C., against an order of acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence or imposition of inadequate compensation. The issue is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, reported as 2025 INSC 804 : 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208, has authoritatively held that a complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act qualifies as a “victim” within Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C., being the person who suffers financial loss on account of dishonour of cheque. It has further been held that such a is entitled to maintain an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Cr.P.C. and that there is no requirement of seeking special leave to Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. Applying the aforesaid legal position to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the applicant, being the complainant and having suffered loss unt of the alleged offence, squarely falls within the definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. Consequently, the right to prefer an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. stands vested in the applicant. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran position that a complainant-victim is entitled to maintain an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., this Court deems it appropriate to treat the present application as an appeal instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the present appeal is ordered to be remitte of learned Sessions Judge concerned with a direction to treat the same as having -2- ntive right of appeal upon a “victim”, as defined under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C., against an order of acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence or The issue is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/ Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, reported as 2025 INSC 804 : 2025(3) , has authoritatively held that a complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act qualifies as a “victim” within Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C., being the person who suffers financial loss on account of dishonour of cheque. It has further been held that such a complainant is entitled to maintain an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 there is no requirement of seeking special leave to appeal under Applying the aforesaid legal position to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the applicant, being the complainant and having suffered loss unt of the alleged offence, squarely falls within the definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. Consequently, the right to prefer an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. stands vested in the applicant. the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, and reiterating the legal victim is entitled to maintain an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. without seeking leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., this Court deems it appropriate to treat the present application as an appeal instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the present appeal is ordered to be remitted to the Court of learned Sessions Judge concerned with a direction to treat the same as having ntive right of appeal upon a “victim”, as defined under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C., against an order of acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence or M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, reported as 2025 INSC 804 : 2025(3) , has authoritatively held that a complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act qualifies as a “victim” within Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C., being the person who suffers financial loss complainant Section 372 appeal under Applying the aforesaid legal position to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the applicant, being the complainant and having suffered loss unt of the alleged offence, squarely falls within the definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. Consequently, the right to prefer an appeal against the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme , and reiterating the legal victim is entitled to maintain an appeal against .P.C. without seeking leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., this Court deems it appropriate to treat the present application as an appeal instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. d to the Court of learned Sessions Judge concerned with a direction to treat the same as having TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.06 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-AS-234-2017 been filed under Section 413 of BNSS learned Sessions Judge, concerned assign it to some other Court of 9. The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this order along with the complete paper- Court record, if received, 10. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. February 02, 202 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2017 (O&M) been filed under Section 413 of BNSS (corresponding Section 372 Cr.P.C) learned Sessions Judge, concerned may entrust the appeal to himself/herself or gn it to some other Court of competent jurisdiction for its disposal. The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this order along with the -book, including pending applications, if any and return the trial Court record, if received, to the learned Sessions Judge concerned. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- (corresponding Section 372 Cr.P.C). The may entrust the appeal to himself/herself or competent jurisdiction for its disposal. The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this order along with the book, including pending applications, if any and return the trial to the learned Sessions Judge concerned. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE . The may entrust the appeal to himself/herself or The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this order along with the book, including pending applications, if any and return the trial All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.06 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document