CRA-A-1540-2024 223 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Subhash Singla Prabhat Kumar CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. None MANDEEP PANNU J. CRM-45658-2023 This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 29 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 29 days in filing th condoned. CRA-A-1540-2023 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 14.07.2023 passed by learned whereby the trial Court has acquitted the respondents Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Leave to appeal 2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRA Date of Decision : VERSUS HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Karan Garg, Advocate for the appellant None for the respondent. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) 2023 This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 29 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 29 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 Sub Divisional whereby the trial Court has acquitted the respondents Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. eave to appeal is granted. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-A-1540-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision : 02.02.2026 ....Appellant ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU appellant This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 29 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 29 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 Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Narwana whereby the trial Court has acquitted the respondents-accused in a complaint under 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 Narwana, accused in a complaint under TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.05 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-A-1540-2024 3. The limited question which arises for consideration in the 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 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 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 804 : 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208 under Section 138 of the Negot 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 is entitled to maintain an appeal aga 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 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 Sec 2024 (O&M) The limited question which arises for consideration in the 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. 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 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 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 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 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. -2- 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 Crimina 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, 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 iable 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 inst 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, 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 tion 372 Cr.P.C. stands vested in the applicant. 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 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 .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 M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, reported as 2025 INSC 804 : 2025(3) , has authoritatively held that a complainant in a prosecution iable 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 Applying the aforesaid legal position to the facts of the present case, 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 TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.05 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-A-1540-2024 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 Court deems it appropriate to treat the present application as an appeal instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P 8. 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 learned Sessions 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 miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. February 02, 202 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2024 (O&M) 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 maintai 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 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 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- 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 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 (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 lications, 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 In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme , and reiterating the legal n 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 .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 The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this order along with the lications, if any and return the trial All pending 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