CRM-A-153-2024 IN THE H (113) GURMAIL KAU AVTAR SINGH CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. H MANISHA BATR CRM-19015-2026 1. Praye which was dismis of counsel for the 2. It is s application that on appear before the absence was not therefore, there w submitted that the allowed. 2024 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH KAUR Versus NGH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Mr. Bhuwan Vats, Advocate for the Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana **** BATRA, J. (ORAL) 2026 Prayer in this application is made for dismissed on the ground of non-prose or the applicant. It is submitted by learned counsel for that on the date of dismissal, the coun re the Court due to some clerical mista s not intentional. He had been re ere was no occasion for the petition hat the prayer made by the petition JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-A-153-2024 (O&M) Date of decision : 05.05.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA r the applicant-appellant de for restoration of the main appeal prosecution due to non-appearance sel for the applicant as well as in the e counsel for the applicant could not l mistake in informing the date. His en representing the petitioner and etitioner to appear. It is, therefore, etitioner in the application may be M) 2026 peal ance n the d not His and fore, y be AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.05 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-A-153-2024 3. This considerable lengt 4. The a of non-appearance reasons as given i the applicant has m same is allowed appeal is ordered t of this Court today CRM-A-153-2024 1. The i Code of Criminal file an appeal agai learned Judicial 348/2019, titled as of the Negotiable complaint of the a I. Act. 2. Today application. Learn pronouncement of Gnanasekaran E directing the pres 2024 (O&M) 2 This Court has heard learned co e length besides perusing the record. The appeal filed by the petitioner had arance of his counsel or himself on iven in the application, this Court is t has made out a case for allowing the owed and the order dated 12.08.202 dered to be restored to its original num t today itself. 2024 The instant application has been file minal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P al against the judgment of acquittal da icial Magistrate 1st Class, Kharar itled as ‘Gurmail Kaur Vs. Avtar Si tiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for sh f the appellant was dismissed in defau Today, the case was fixed for a Learned counsel for the appellant, ent of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/ n Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) e present application as an appeal, ed counsel for the applicant at er had been dismissed on the ground elf on 12.08.2025. In view of the urt is of the considered opinion that ng the application. Accordingly, the 08.2025 is hereby recalled and the al number and is taken on the Board en filed under Section 378(4) of the ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking grant of leave to ittal dated 16.12.2021, passed by the harar in case bearing No.NACT- tar Singh’, filed under Section 138 r short ‘N. I. Act’), whereby the default under Section 138 of the N. for addressing arguments on the ellant, while relying upon a recent M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. nal) 208, has submitted that by ppeal, filed under Sections 372 of t at ound f the that , the the oard f the ve to y the - 138 the e N. the ecent A. t by 2 of AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.05 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-A-153-2024 Cr.P.C. (which is Sanhita, 2023), the 3. In M Court has interpre the victim in a priv 372 of Cr.P.C., ag Hon’ble Supreme 2024 (O&M) 3 h is pari materia with Section 413 o , the same be sent to appropriate Co M/s. Celestium Financial’s case terpreted Sections 372 and 378(4) of a private complaint case has a right t .C., against the order of acquittal befo reme Court has observed as follows: “7.12 The reasons for the above can be elaborated as follows: Firstly, the victim of a crime mus an appeal which cannot be ci precedent. In the instant case, a Act, i.e., a payee or the holder o suffered the impact of the offenc charged of the offence, namely, been dishonoured. Secondly, the right of a victim o with the right of an accused who as a matter of right can prefer an CrPC. A person convicted of a appeal under Section 374 as a subjected to any conditions. S whatever be the nature of the cri right to prefer an appeal. Thirdly, it is for this reason tha insert the proviso to sub-sectio condition precedent to be fulfill which expression also includes 13 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha ate Court for its disposal. case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme (4) of Cr.P.C. and has observed that right to file an appeal, under Section al before the Court of Sessions. The lows: bove distinction are not far to see and e must have an absolute right to prefer be circumscribed by any condition ase, a victim under Section 138 of the lder of a cheque is a person who has offence committed by a person who is mely, the accused, whose cheque has ctim of a crime must be placed on par d who has suffered a conviction, who, fer an appeal under Section 374 of the of a crime has the right to prefer an as a matter of right and not being ns. Similarly, a victim of a crime, the crime, unconditionally must have a on that the Parliament thought it fit to section 372 without mandating any fulfilled by the victim of an offence, cludes the legal representatives of a sha reme that ction . The and refer ition f the has ho is has n par who, f the er an eing rime, ve a fit to any ence, of a AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.05 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-A-153-2024 2024 (O&M) 4 deceased victim who can prefer against an order of acquittal, Prosecutor can prefer an appeal e prefer such an appeal, though of c leave of the court. However, it State or a complainant to prefer a victim's right to prefer an appeal, leave to appeal from the High C CrPC would be contrary to w Parliament by insertion of the pro Fourthly, the Parliament has circumscribe the victim's right to with regard to a complainant or t other hand, the Parliament has ins so as to envisage a superior righ prefer an appeal on the grounds m a complainant. Fifthly, the involvement of the under Section 138 of the Act is co because the complaint filed under a private complaint as per Sectio 143 of the Act by an express inte of the CrPC in the matter of trial o a criminal offence. Therefore, the of a dishonour of cheque must be of the proviso to Section 372 re under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C 8. The right to prefer an appeal i the right to prefer an appeal by an not merely a statutory right but fundamental right under Articles that is so, then the right of a vi prefer an appeal. On the contrary, as ittal, the State, through the Public ppeal even if the complainant does not gh of course such an appeal is with the er, it is not always necessary for the refer an appeal. But when it comes to a ppeal, the insistence on seeking special igh Court under Section 378(4) of the to what has been intended by the he proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC. has not amended Section 378 to ight to prefer an appeal just as it has nt or the State filing an appeal. On the has inserted the proviso to Section 372 r right for the victim of an offence to unds mentioned therein as compared to of the State in respect of an offence ct is conspicuous by its absence. This is under that provision is in the nature of Section 200 of the CrPC and Section ss intention incorporates the provisions f trial of such a deemed offence tried as re, the complainant, who is the victim ust be construed to be victim in terms 372 read with the definition of victim Cr.P.C. ppeal is no doubt a statutory right and l by an accused against a conviction is ht but can also be construed to be a rticles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. If f a victim of an offence to prefer an y, as ublic s not h the r the to a ecial f the the 8 to t has n the 372 ce to ed to ence his is re of ction sions ed as ictim erms ictim t and on is be a n. If r an AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.05 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-A-153-2024 2024 (O&M) 5 appeal cannot be equated with complainant to prefer an appeal. filing of an appeal by the State order of acquittal cannot be read i the CrPC so as to restrict the righ the grounds mentioned therein, w 9. In the circumstances, we find t in the nature of a penal provision accused who is said to have com 50 provision, if acquitted, can be the said offence, namely, the proceeds of a cheque which has b proviso to Section 372 of the CrP a victim of an offence could also an appeal can be preferred either or under Section 378 by such a proviso to Section 372, a victim o an appeal as such, unless he wa event he could maintain an appe been granted by the High Court granted then his appeal would no other hand, if the victim of an off complainant, proceeds under the CrPC, then in our view, such a vi to appeal from the High Court. I offence would have the right to pr an order of acquittal in terms without seeking any special leave only on the grounds mentioned complainant under Section 200 o the offence committed by a perso under Section 138 of the Act, th appeal as a victim under the provi with the right of the State or the ppeal. Hence, the statutory rigours for State or by a complainant against an read into the proviso to Section 372 of e right of a victim to file an appeal on ein, when none exists. find that Section 138 of the Act being vision by a deeming fiction against an e committed an offence under the said an be proceeded against by a victim of , the person who is entitled to the has been dishonoured, in terms of the he CrPC, as a victim. As already noted, d also be a complainant. In such a case, either under the proviso to Section 372 such a victim. In the absence of the ictim of an offence could not have filed he was also a complainant, in which appeal if special leave to appeal had Court and if no such special leave was uld not be maintainable at all. On the an offence, who may or may not be the er the proviso to Section 372 of the ch a victim need not seek special leave ourt. In other words, the victim of an ht to prefer an appeal, inter alia, against terms of the proviso to Section 372 l leave to appeal from the High Court ntioned therein. A person who is a 200 of the CrPC who complains about a person who is charged as an accused ct, thus has 51 the right to prefer an e proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC. the s for st an 72 of al on eing st an said m of the f the oted, case, 372 f the filed hich l had was n the e the f the leave f an ainst 372 ourt is a bout used er an AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.05 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-A-153-2024 4. On go Court, it is clear under Section 138 within the ambit o Section 413 of BN Satish Kumar vs. (deceased) throug dated 02.07.2025 vide order dated 0 5. In vie by Hon’ble Supre appeal along with Court of learned S the same as havi Sessions Judge, SA it to some other co 2024 (O&M) 6 10. As already noted, the proviso inserted in the statute book only w object and reason for such inserti given its full effect to by a c discussion, we hold that the victi prefer an appeal under the provi irrespective of whether he is a victim of an offence is a compla the proviso to Section 372 and n of Section 378 of the CrPC.” On going through the above mentione clear that an appeal against an order on 138 of the NI Act preferred by t mbit of proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P of BNSS). Similar observations hav r vs. Jugal Kishore, CRM-A-2700 rough LRs vs. Pardeep Sharma, .2025 and in Raj Kumar vs. Rajend ated 07.07.2025. In view of the discussion as made abo Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium g with the accompanying application i rned Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar (Mo s having been filed under Section SAS Nagar (Mohali) may entrust ther court of competent jurisdiction for roviso to Section 372 of the CrPC was only with effect from 31.12.2009. The insertion must be realised and must be y a court. In view of the aforesaid e victim of an offence has the right to proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, is a complainant or not. Even if the omplainant, he can still proceed under and need not advert to sub-section (4) entioned pronouncement of the Apex order of acquittal in a proceeding d by the complainant squarely falls f Cr.P.C. (which is pari materia with ns have been made by this Court in 700-MA-2018 and Ajmer Kundu , CRM-A-481-2022, vide orders ajender, CRM-A-826-2025(O&M) de above and the observations made um Financial’s case (supra), the ation is ordered to be remitted to the ar (Mohali) with a direction to treat ction 372 of Cr.P.C.. The learned ntrust the appeal to himself or assign ion for its disposal. was . The st be esaid ht to , f the nder n (4) pex ding falls with rt in du rders M) ade , the o the treat rned ssign AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.05 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-A-153-2024 6. Need Learned Sessions Court has not gone 7. Learn inform the appell (Mohali). The app Judge, SAS Nagar 8. The record of the case 9. Dispo 05.05.2026 Amit Sharma 2024 (O&M) 7 Needless to clarify that it is left ope sions Judge concerned to delve into t ot gone into the same. Learned counsel for the appellant, p appellant for appearance before the he appellant is also directed to appea Nagar (Mohali) in person or through h The Registry is directed to send t e case to learned Sessions Judge, SAS Disposed of. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable:- Yes/No ft open for the consideration of the into the merits of the appeal as this lant, present in Court, is directed to re the Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar appear before the learned Sessions ough his counsel on 08.06.2026. send the complete paper-book and SAS Nagar (Mohali) forthwith. (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE oned:- Yes/No es/No f the this ed to agar sions and AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.05 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.