CRM-A-900-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 281(1) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, BATHINDA HIMANI SHARMA CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. for the appellant. RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) CRM-25737-2024 This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 with a prayer for condoning the delay of 81 days. As per the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 81 days is condoned MAIN CASE 1. The present application has been filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking to cha of Chief Judicial Magistrate, 276-C (1), 276 2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision: 2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, Versus HIMANI SHARMA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Pridhi Sandhu, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) 2024 This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 with a prayer for condoning the delay of 81 days. As per the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 81 days is condoned. MAIN CASE The present application has been filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking to challenge the order dated 21 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, whereby, the complaint under Section C (1), 276-C (2), Section 277 and Section 276 CC of the Income Tax -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-900-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.01.2026 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, ….Petitioner ....Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 with a prayer for condoning the delay of 81 days. As per the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is . The present application has been filed under Section 378(4) 21.08.2023 passed by the Court , whereby, the complaint under Section C (2), Section 277 and Section 276 CC of the Income Tax - ….Petitioner ....Respondent This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 As per the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is The present application has been filed under Section 378(4) passed by the Court , whereby, the complaint under Section C (2), Section 277 and Section 276 CC of the Income Tax GURPREET 2026.02.03 08:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-A-900-2024 Act, 1961 filed by the applicant respondent who 2. The limited question arising for consideration in the present proceedings is whether an appeal against an order of acquittal can be entertained under the complainant? 3. The issue is no longer res integra. In Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.2025(3) RCR (Criminal)208 Court has held as under: "8. right and the right to prefer an appeal by an accused against a conviction is not merely a statutory right but can also be construed to be a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. If that offence to prefer an appeal cannot be equated with the right of the State or the complainant to prefer an appeal. Hence, the statutory rigours for filing of an appeal by the State or by a complainant against an order the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC so as to restrict the right of a victim to file an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein, when none exists. 9. Act being in t against an accused who is said to have committed an offence under the said provision, if acquitted, can be proceeded against by a victim of the said offence, namely, the person who is entitled to the proc terms of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, as a victim. As already noted, a victim of an offence could also be a complainant. In such a case, an appeal can be preferred either under the proviso to Secti victim. In the absence of the proviso to Section 372, a victim of an offence could not have filed an appeal as such, unless he was also a complainant, in which event he could maintain an appeal if special leave to appe 2024 (O&M) filed by the applicant-appellant was dismissed who was acquitted of the charges framed against The limited question arising for consideration in the present proceedings is whether an appeal against an order of acquittal can be entertained under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. at the instance of the complainant? The issue is no longer res integra. In Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.2025(3) RCR (Criminal)208 Court has held as under:- "8. The right to prefer an appeal is no doubt a statutory right and the right to prefer an appeal by an accused against a conviction is not merely a statutory right but can also be construed to be a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. If that is so, then the right of a victim of an offence to prefer an appeal cannot be equated with the right of the State or the complainant to prefer an appeal. Hence, the statutory rigours for filing of an appeal by the State or by a complainant against an order of acquittal cannot be read into the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC so as to restrict the right of a victim to file an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein, when none exists. 9. In the circumstances, we find that Section 138 of the Act being in the nature of a penal provision by a deeming fiction against an accused who is said to have committed an offence under the said provision, if acquitted, can be proceeded against by a victim of the said offence, namely, the person who is entitled to the proceeds of a cheque which has been dishonoured, in terms of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, as a victim. As already noted, a victim of an offence could also be a complainant. In such a case, an appeal can be preferred either under the proviso to Section 372 or under Section 378 by such a victim. In the absence of the proviso to Section 372, a victim of an offence could not have filed an appeal as such, unless he was also a complainant, in which event he could maintain an appeal if special leave to appeal had been granted by the High Court -2- was dismissed against the present acquitted of the charges framed against her. The limited question arising for consideration in the present proceedings is whether an appeal against an order of acquittal can be the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. at the instance of The issue is no longer res integra. In M/s Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.2025(3) RCR (Criminal)208, Hon’ble Supreme o prefer an appeal is no doubt a statutory right and the right to prefer an appeal by an accused against a conviction is not merely a statutory right but can also be construed to be a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of is so, then the right of a victim of an offence to prefer an appeal cannot be equated with the right of the State or the complainant to prefer an appeal. Hence, the statutory rigours for filing of an appeal by the State or by a of acquittal cannot be read into the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC so as to restrict the right of a victim to file an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein, In the circumstances, we find that Section 138 of the he nature of a penal provision by a deeming fiction against an accused who is said to have committed an offence under the said provision, if acquitted, can be proceeded against by a victim of the said offence, namely, the person who is entitled eeds of a cheque which has been dishonoured, in terms of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, as a victim. As already noted, a victim of an offence could also be a complainant. In such a case, an appeal can be preferred either on 372 or under Section 378 by such a victim. In the absence of the proviso to Section 372, a victim of an offence could not have filed an appeal as such, unless he was also a complainant, in which event he could maintain an appeal al had been granted by the High Court - against the present The limited question arising for consideration in the present proceedings is whether an appeal against an order of acquittal can be the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. at the instance of M/s Celestium Financial , Hon’ble Supreme o prefer an appeal is no doubt a statutory right and the right to prefer an appeal by an accused against a conviction is not merely a statutory right but can also be construed to be a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of is so, then the right of a victim of an offence to prefer an appeal cannot be equated with the right of the State or the complainant to prefer an appeal. Hence, the statutory rigours for filing of an appeal by the State or by a of acquittal cannot be read into the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC so as to restrict the right of a victim to file an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein, In the circumstances, we find that Section 138 of the he nature of a penal provision by a deeming fiction against an accused who is said to have committed an offence under the said provision, if acquitted, can be proceeded against by a victim of the said offence, namely, the person who is entitled eeds of a cheque which has been dishonoured, in terms of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, as a victim. As already noted, a victim of an offence could also be a complainant. In such a case, an appeal can be preferred either on 372 or under Section 378 by such a victim. In the absence of the proviso to Section 372, a victim of an offence could not have filed an appeal as such, unless he was also a complainant, in which event he could maintain an appeal al had been granted by the High Court GURPREET 2026.02.03 08:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-A-900-2024 and if no such special leave was granted then his appeal would not be maintainable at all. On the other hand, if the victim of an offence, who may the proviso to victim need not seek special leave to appeal from the High Court. In other words, the victim of an offence would have the right to prefer an appeal, inter alia, against an order of ac terms of the leave to appeal from the High Court only on the grounds mentioned therein. A person who is a complainant under Section 200 of the CrPC who complains about the offence committed by a person who is charged Act, thus has the right to prefer an appeal as a victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC. 10. CrPC was inserted in the statute book only with effect fr 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such insertion must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the victim of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Sect 372 of the CrPC, irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the victim of an offence is a complainant, he can still proceed under the proviso to Section 372 and need not advert to sub 11. 12.06.2024 in Crl. O.P. Nos.929, 931 and 1034 of 2024 in Crl. A. SR. Nos. 1282, 1300 and 1321 of 2024 is set aside. Liberty is reserved to the appellant herein to file the appeal(s) having regard to the proviso to months from today. 12. four months from today, the issue of limitation may not be raised by the respondents herein or by the appellate Court." 4. In the light of the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court as also the guiding principle that procedural rule must serve and not obstruct the course of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct concerned Sessions Judge that the present applic 2024 (O&M) and if no such special leave was granted then his appeal would not be maintainable at all. On the other hand, if the victim of an offence, who may or may not be the complainant, proceeds under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, then in our view, such a victim need not seek special leave to appeal from the High Court. In other words, the victim of an offence would have the right to prefer an appeal, inter alia, against an order of ac terms of the proviso to Section 372 without seeking any special leave to appeal from the High Court only on the grounds mentioned therein. A person who is a complainant under Section 200 of the CrPC who complains about the offence committed by a person who is charged as an accused under Section 138 of the Act, thus has the right to prefer an appeal as a victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC. 10. As already noted, the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC was inserted in the statute book only with effect fr 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such insertion must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the victim of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Sect 372 of the CrPC, irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the victim of an offence is a complainant, he can still proceed under the proviso to Section 372 and need not advert to sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the CrPC. 11. In the result, the impugned common order dated 12.06.2024 in Crl. O.P. Nos.929, 931 and 1034 of 2024 in Crl. A. SR. Nos. 1282, 1300 and 1321 of 2024 is set aside. Liberty is reserved to the appellant herein to file the appeal(s) having regard to the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC within four months from today. 12. Should the appeal(s) be filed within the period of four months from today, the issue of limitation may not be raised by the respondents herein or by the appellate Court." In the light of the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court as also the guiding principle that procedural rule must serve and not obstruct the course of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct concerned Sessions Judge that the present application be treated as one authoritatively -3- and if no such special leave was granted then his appeal would not be maintainable at all. On the other hand, if the victim of an or may not be the complainant, proceeds under Section 372 of the CrPC, then in our view, such a victim need not seek special leave to appeal from the High Court. In other words, the victim of an offence would have the right to prefer an appeal, inter alia, against an order of acquittal in proviso to Section 372 without seeking any special leave to appeal from the High Court only on the grounds mentioned therein. A person who is a complainant under Section 200 of the CrPC who complains about the offence committed by as an accused under Section 138 of the Act, thus has the right to prefer an appeal as a victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC. As already noted, the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC was inserted in the statute book only with effect from 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such insertion must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the victim of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the victim of an offence is a complainant, he can still proceed under the proviso to Section 372 and need not advert to section (4) of Section 378 of the CrPC. e result, the impugned common order dated 12.06.2024 in Crl. O.P. Nos.929, 931 and 1034 of 2024 in Crl. A. SR. Nos. 1282, 1300 and 1321 of 2024 is set aside. Liberty is reserved to the appellant herein to file the appeal(s) having Section 372 of the CrPC within four Should the appeal(s) be filed within the period of four months from today, the issue of limitation may not be raised by the respondents herein or by the appellate Court." In the light of the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court as also the guiding principle that procedural rule must serve and not obstruct the course of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct concerned ation be treated as one authoritatively - and if no such special leave was granted then his appeal would not be maintainable at all. On the other hand, if the victim of an or may not be the complainant, proceeds under Section 372 of the CrPC, then in our view, such a victim need not seek special leave to appeal from the High Court. In other words, the victim of an offence would have the right to quittal in proviso to Section 372 without seeking any special leave to appeal from the High Court only on the grounds mentioned therein. A person who is a complainant under Section 200 of the CrPC who complains about the offence committed by as an accused under Section 138 of the Act, thus has the right to prefer an appeal as a victim under the As already noted, the proviso to Section 372 of the om 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such insertion must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the victim of an offence ion 372 of the CrPC, irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the victim of an offence is a complainant, he can still proceed under the proviso to Section 372 and need not advert to e result, the impugned common order dated 12.06.2024 in Crl. O.P. Nos.929, 931 and 1034 of 2024 in Crl. A. SR. Nos. 1282, 1300 and 1321 of 2024 is set aside. Liberty is reserved to the appellant herein to file the appeal(s) having Section 372 of the CrPC within four Should the appeal(s) be filed within the period of four months from today, the issue of limitation may not be raised In the light of the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court as also the guiding principle that procedural rule must serve and not obstruct the course of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct concerned GURPREET 2026.02.03 08:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-A-900-2024 instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to an appropriate Court for disposal on merits. 5. The concerned Appellate Court shall proceed to decide the appeal expeditiousl 6. The Registry is directed to transmit this order along with copy of the complete paper the concerned Sessions Judge forthwith. 7. Disposed of accordingly. 28.01.2026 Gurpreet 2024 (O&M) instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to an appropriate Court for disposal on merits. The concerned Appellate Court shall proceed to decide the appeal expeditiously. The Registry is directed to transmit this order along with copy of the complete paper-book and return the Trial Court record, if any received, to the concerned Sessions Judge forthwith. Disposed of accordingly. i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No -4- instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to an appropriate Court for disposal on merits. The concerned Appellate Court shall proceed to decide the The Registry is directed to transmit this order along with copy of book and return the Trial Court record, if any received, to (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No - instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same The concerned Appellate Court shall proceed to decide the The Registry is directed to transmit this order along with copy of book and return the Trial Court record, if any received, to (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) GURPREET 2026.02.03 08:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.