CRM-A-2266-MA-2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 232 CRM-A-2266-MA-2018(O&M) Date of decision : 08.08.2025 Satender Singh ..... Applicant VERSUS Anju Yadav ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Himmat Singh Deol, Advocate for the respondent/complainant. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J. (Oral) CRM-35754-2018 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 345 days in filing the present application seeking leave to appeal. The application is allowed for the reasons stated therein. Delay of 345 days in filing the present application seeking leave to appeal is hereby condoned. CRM-A-2266-MA-2018 1. The applicant has filed the present application seeking for leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal, passed in a complaint case instituted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’), whereby a complaint filed by the applicant was dismissed and the accused acquitted. 2. The limited question arising for consideration in the present proceedings is whether an appeal against a judgment of acquittal passed by ANJAL GUPTA 2025.08.11 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-2266-MA-2018 the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rewari, in a complaint case with regard to the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, can be entertained at the instance of complainant under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.? 3. The issue is no longer res integra. In ‘M/s Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. 2025 INSC 804 : 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208’ the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that a complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act, qualifies as a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C., being the person who suffers financial loss due to dishonour of a cheque. Consequently, such a complainant is entitled to pursue an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. without the requirement of seeking special leave under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant would like to exercise the option available to him before the Sessions Court. 4. Adopting a pragmatic and justice oriented approach and guided by the principle that procedural rule must serve and not obstruct the course of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct that the present appeal be treated as one authoritatively instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. 5. In conclusion, this Court is duty bound to harmonize contrasting provisions in a manner that best serves the interest of justice, using the method of librere cherche scientifique i.e. free scientific research. Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial (supra) and the fact that the present application for leave to appeal is pending since 2018, learned Sessions Judge, Rewari, is ANJAL GUPTA 2025.08.11 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-2266-MA-2018 directed to treat the present appeal, as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to appropriate Court for its disposal. 6. The concerned Appellate Court shall proceed to decide the appeal expeditiously, without being impeded by any delay in filing the appeal, in view of the legal position now clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. The Registry is directed to transmit this order along with the copy of the complete paper-book and return the trial Court record, if received, to the learned Sessions Judge concerned. 8. Disposed of accordingly. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE AUGUST 08, 2025 Anjal Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No ANJAL GUPTA 2025.08.11 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document