CRM-A-754-2023 234 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Satish Gehlot Geeta CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. A.S.Mann, Advocate for Mr. C.S.Rana, Advocate for the appellant. MANDEEP PANNU J. CRM-23451-2023 This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and delay of condoned. CRA-A-754-2023 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 07.02.2023 passed by learned trial Court has appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Leave to appeal 2023 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Date of Decision : VERSUS HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. A.S.Mann, Advocate for Mr. C.S.Rana, Advocate for the appellant. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) 2023 This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 38 days in filing the present appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and delay of 38 days in filing th 2023 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 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate trial Court has dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. eave to appeal is granted. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-754-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision : 13.02.2026 ....Appellant ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU Mr. C.S.Rana, Advocate for the appellant. This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for days in filing the present appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed days in filing the present appeal is 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 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, whereby the for want of prosecution filed by the under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed e present appeal is 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 , whereby the filed by the TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.19 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-754-2023 3. It is relevant to mention here that petitioner/complainant, summoned and when the case was fixed for presence of accused, the complainant did not appear prosecution. 4. The limited question which arises for consideration in the present proceedings is with regard to the maintainability of an appeal against passed in a complaint case and, more particularly, as be entertained under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of at the instance of the complainant. 5. This Court has carefully considered the statutory scheme as contained in Sections 2(wa), 372 and 378 of achieved by insertion of the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. The said proviso confers a substantive right of appeal upon a “victim”, as defined under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C., against an order of acquittal, convict imposition of inadequate compensation. 6. 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 Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C., being the person who suffers financial loss on account of dishonour of cheque. It has further 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. 2023 (O&M) It is relevant to mention here that petitioner/complainant, after preliminary evidence summoned and when the case was fixed for presence of accused, the complainant did not appear. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed for want of The limited question which arises for consideration in the present proceedings is with regard to the maintainability of an appeal against complaint case and, more particularly, as be entertained under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of 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 confers a substantive right of appeal upon a “victim”, as defined under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C., against an order of acquittal, convict 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 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 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. -2- It is relevant to mention here that on filing of the complaint by the preliminary evidence, the accused were ordered to be summoned and when the case was fixed for presence of accused, the complainant complaint was dismissed for want of The limited question which arises for consideration in the present proceedings is with regard to the maintainability of an appeal against the order 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 Procedure This Court has carefully considered the statutory scheme as contained 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 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) 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 t by the , the accused were ordered to be summoned and when the case was fixed for presence of accused, the complainant complaint was dismissed for want of The limited question which arises for consideration in the present order appeal can Criminal Procedure This Court has carefully considered the statutory scheme as contained 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 confers a substantive right of appeal upon a “victim”, as defined under Section ion for a lesser offence or M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, reported as 2025 INSC 804 : 2025(3) 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 complainant Section 372 appeal under TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.19 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-754-2023 7. Applying the aforesaid leg 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, acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. stands vested in the applicant. 8. 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 Court deems it appropriate to treat the present application as an appeal instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. 9. 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 been filed under learned Sessions Judge, concerned assign it to some other Court of 10. The Registry is directed to transmit complete paper- Court record, if received, to the learned Sessions Judge concerned. 11. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands February 13, 202 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2023 (O&M) 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 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.P.C. without seeking leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., this Court deems it appropriate to treat the present pplication 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 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 disposal. The Registry is directed to transmit -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 , 2026 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- al 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” 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, 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 pplication 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 (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. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE al 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” the right to prefer an appeal against In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme 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 pplication 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 . The may entrust the appeal to himself/herself or a copy of this order along with the book, including pending applications, if any and return the trial disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.19 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document