CRA-AS-375-2022 117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Sandeep Sharma Satish Kumar and CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. Naveen Chopra, None for the respondents. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. The applicant has filed the present application under Cr.P.C read with Section 482 Cr.P.C impugned judgment dated Panipat, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the respondents complaint under Section 2. Leave 3. 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. 4. This Court has carefully considered the statutory 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 2022 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRA Date of Decision : Sandeep Sharma VERSUS Satish Kumar and Another HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Naveen Chopra, Advocate for the None for the respondents. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) The applicant has filed the present application under read with Section 482 Cr.P.C for grant of leave to file an appeal against the impugned judgment dated 06.01.2020 passed by learned , whereby the trial Court has acquitted the respondents complaint under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/120 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 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 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-375-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision : 04.02.2026 ....Appellant ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU Advocate for the appellant. The applicant has filed the present application under Section 378(4) for grant of leave to file an appeal against the passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, , whereby the trial Court has acquitted the respondents-accused in a 406/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC. 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 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 Section 378(4) for grant of leave to file an appeal against the Judicial Magistrate, accused in a 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 and, more particularly, as to whether such an Criminal 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 2026.02.05 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-AS-375-2022 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. 5. The issue is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, reported as 2025 INSC RCR (Criminal) 208 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act qualifies as a “victim” within the meaning of Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C., being the person who suffers financial 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. 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 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 the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran position that a complainant acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. without seeking leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., this 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 remitted to the Court of learned Sessions Judge concerned with a direc 2022 (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 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 the meaning of Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C., being the person who suffers financial 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 on account of the alleged offence, squarely falls within the definition 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 /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.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 direc -2- 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 The issue is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 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 the meaning of 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 Cr.P.C. and that 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 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. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme /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 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 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 M/s 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 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 of “victim” under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. Consequently, the right to prefer an appeal against In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme , 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 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 tion to treat the same as having TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.05 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-AS-375-2022 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, to the learned Sessions Judge concerned. 10. All pending February 04, 202 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2022 (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 assign it to some other Court of competent jurisdiction for its dis 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 Court record, if received, to the learned Sessions Judge concerned. 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 miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.05 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document