IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT 243 ADESH KUMAR MAHESH TANWAR CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH Present: Mr. for the SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. (ORAL) The victim/complainant seeks leave to file appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against impugned order of acquittal of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Clas “Adesh kumar Vs Mahesh Tanwar Instruments Act. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to refer to proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. (now Section 413 of 2023), which reads as under: 372. Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force. IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of Decision: 10 ADESH KUMAR V/S MAHESH TANWAR CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for for the appellant. **** SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. (ORAL) The victim/complainant seeks leave to file appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against impugned order of acquittal of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad dated 16.10.2024 Adesh kumar Vs Mahesh Tanwar.” under Sections Act. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to refer to proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. (now Section 413 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), which reads as under: 372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided. No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force. IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-1677-2024 Date of Decision: 10.09.2026 … Appellant …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Advocate for SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. (ORAL) The victim/complainant seeks leave to file appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against impugned order of acquittal of learned Judicial 16.10.2024 in complaint case captioned under Sections 138/142 of Negotiable Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to refer to proviso Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, unless otherwise provided. - No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT NAGPAL The victim/complainant seeks leave to file appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against impugned order of acquittal of learned Judicial in complaint case captioned 138/142 of Negotiable Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to refer to proviso Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other JYOTI 2026.09.10 19:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-1677 Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against an convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court In 3 RCR (Criminal) 208, and 378(4) of Cr.P.C. and has concluded that the victim in a private complaint case has a right to file an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. against the order of acquittal before the Court of Sessions. reproduced as under: “………. reproduced as under: “………. But when it comes to a victim’s right to prefer an appeal, the insistence on seeking special leave to appeal from the High Court under section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. would be contrary to what ha proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. Fourthly, the parliament has not amended Section 378 to circumscribe the victim’s right to prefer an appeal just as it has with regard to a complaint or the State f inserted the proviso to Section 372 so as to envisage a superior right for the victim of an offence to prefer an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein as compared to a complainant.” 1677-2024 Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court. In M/s Celestium Financial Versus A. Gnanasekaran etc.; (2025) 3 RCR (Criminal) 208, Hon’ble Supreme Court has interpreted Sections 372 and 378(4) of Cr.P.C. and has concluded that the victim in a private complaint case has a right to file an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. against the order of acquittal before the Court of Sessions. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under: “………. But when it comes to a victim’s right to prefer an appeal, the insistence on seeking special leave to appeal from the High Court under section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. would be contrary to what has been intended by the Parliament by insertion of the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. Fourthly, the parliament has not amended Section 378 to circumscribe the victim’s right to prefer an appeal just as it has with regard to a complaint or the State filing an appeal. On the other hand, the Parliament has inserted the proviso to Section 372 so as to envisage a superior right for the victim of an offence to prefer an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein as compared to a complainant.” - Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal y order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such (Emphasis supplied) M/s Celestium Financial Versus A. Gnanasekaran etc.; (2025) Hon’ble Supreme Court has interpreted Sections 372 and 378(4) of Cr.P.C. and has concluded that the victim in a private complaint case has a right to file an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. against the order Relevant portion of the judgment is “………. But when it comes to a victim’s right to prefer an appeal, the insistence on seeking special leave to appeal from the High Court under section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. would be contrary to s been intended by the Parliament by insertion of the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. Fourthly, the parliament has not amended Section 378 to circumscribe the victim’s right to prefer an appeal just as it has with regard to a complaint or the iling an appeal. On the other hand, the Parliament has inserted the proviso to Section 372 so as to envisage a superior right for the victim of an offence to prefer an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein as compared to a complainant.” -2- Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal y order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such upplied) M/s Celestium Financial Versus A. Gnanasekaran etc.; (2025) Hon’ble Supreme Court has interpreted Sections 372 and 378(4) of Cr.P.C. and has concluded that the victim in a private complaint case has a right to file an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. against the order Relevant portion of the judgment is “………. But when it comes to a victim’s right to prefer an appeal, the insistence on seeking special leave to appeal from the High Court under section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. would be contrary to s been intended by the Parliament by insertion of the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. Fourthly, the parliament has not amended Section 378 to circumscribe the victim’s right to prefer an appeal just as it has with regard to a complaint or the iling an appeal. On the other hand, the Parliament has inserted the proviso to Section 372 so as to envisage a superior right for the victim of an offence to prefer an appeal on the JYOTI 2026.09.10 19:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-1677 Observations of Revenue Intelligence Versus Raj Kumar Arora; 2025 SCC Online SC 819 would also be relevant and the same are reproduced as under: “92. provision thereof declar be construed from the date of its enactment. In other words, the judgment declares what the legislature had said at the time when the law was promulgated and therefore, it has retrospective effect. On the contrary be prospective unless expressly made retrospective. What follows from the same, is that a decision or judgment enunciating a principle of law is applicable to all cases irrespective of the stage of pende enunciated is the meaning of the law which existed from the inception of the concerned statue or provision.” Abovementioned judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court have also been followed by Co and others; CRM Haryana and others; CRM matters to the Court of Sessions with a direction to treat the same as an appeal filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and to decide the same in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the applicant has not controverted the above position of law. In view of the pronouncements above, the matter is relegated Court of Sessions, 1677-2024 Observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Revenue Intelligence Versus Raj Kumar Arora; 2025 SCC Online SC 819 would also be relevant and the same are reproduced as under: “92. ……. A judgment or decision which interprets a statute or provision thereof declares the meaning of the statute as it should be construed from the date of its enactment. In other words, the judgment declares what the legislature had said at the time when the law was promulgated and therefore, it has retrospective effect. On the contrary, it is the statute or the rule which is presumed to be prospective unless expressly made retrospective. What follows from the same, is that a decision or judgment enunciating a principle of law is applicable to all cases irrespective of the stage of pendency before different forums since what has been enunciated is the meaning of the law which existed from the inception of the concerned statue or provision.” Abovementioned judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court have also been followed by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in and others; CRM-A-380-MA of 2017 and Dharampal Versus State of Haryana and others; CRM-A-489-MA of 2017, matters to the Court of Sessions with a direction to treat the same as an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and to decide the same in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the applicant has not controverted the above position of law. In view of the pronouncements above, the matter is relegated Court of Sessions, Faridabad. Learned Sessions Judge, - Hon’ble Supreme Court in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Versus Raj Kumar Arora; 2025 SCC Online SC 819 would also be relevant and the same are reproduced as under: ……. A judgment or decision which interprets a statute or es the meaning of the statute as it should be construed from the date of its enactment. In other words, the judgment declares what the legislature had said at the time when the law was promulgated and therefore, it has retrospective effect. , it is the statute or the rule which is presumed to be prospective unless expressly made retrospective. What follows from the same, is that a decision or judgment enunciating a principle of law is applicable to all cases irrespective of the stage ncy before different forums since what has been enunciated is the meaning of the law which existed from the inception of the concerned statue or provision.” Abovementioned judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court have also of this Court in Mewa Devi Versus Pala MA of 2017 and Dharampal Versus State of MA of 2017, while relegating similar matters to the Court of Sessions with a direction to treat the same as an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and to decide the same in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the applicant has not controverted the above In view of the pronouncements above, the matter is relegated to the . Learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad shall treat the -3- Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Versus Raj Kumar Arora; 2025 SCC Online SC 819 ……. A judgment or decision which interprets a statute or es the meaning of the statute as it should be construed from the date of its enactment. In other words, the judgment declares what the legislature had said at the time when the law was promulgated and therefore, it has retrospective effect. , it is the statute or the rule which is presumed to be prospective unless expressly made retrospective. What follows from the same, is that a decision or judgment enunciating a principle of law is applicable to all cases irrespective of the stage ncy before different forums since what has been enunciated is the meaning of the law which existed from the Abovementioned judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court have also Mewa Devi Versus Pala MA of 2017 and Dharampal Versus State of while relegating similar matters to the Court of Sessions with a direction to treat the same as an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and to decide the same in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the applicant has not controverted the above to the shall treat the JYOTI 2026.09.10 19:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-1677 instant leave to appeal as an appeal filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and may entrust the same to himself/herself or assign it to some other Court of competent jurisdiction for its disposal on merits, in a Learned counsel for applicant shall inform the applicant to appear before learned Sessions Judge, person or through counsel. Let entire paper book and record appended thereto be trans to learned Sessions Judge, Disposed of accordingly. 10.09.2026 Jyoti-V 1677-2024 instant leave to appeal as an appeal filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and may entrust the same to himself/herself or assign it to some other Court of competent jurisdiction for its disposal on merits, in accordance with law. Learned counsel for applicant shall inform the applicant to appear re learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad within a period of 15 days either in person or through counsel. Let entire paper book and record appended thereto be trans to learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad forthwith. Disposed of accordingly. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable - instant leave to appeal as an appeal filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and may entrust the same to himself/herself or assign it to some other Court of competent ccordance with law. Learned counsel for applicant shall inform the applicant to appear within a period of 15 days either in Let entire paper book and record appended thereto be transmitted forthwith. SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No -4- instant leave to appeal as an appeal filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and may entrust the same to himself/herself or assign it to some other Court of competent Learned counsel for applicant shall inform the applicant to appear within a period of 15 days either in mitted JYOTI 2026.09.10 19:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document