CRA-AS-222-20 !"# 0220 0/0 84'&'0 %&'( >0'/ ' <50B*= 01(022 2. Court of Ad 26.05.2012. maintainabil Prabhu Vs. 2022 ( O&M ) A <50 8%C9 % %0030'*41(&0 .0<%<(0*41(&0* A' 00'?0 *41(&0* EEEE 22 0 <04 ' 4 02 "# $%&'(")!"#( /0' 34/5 ( 0&'0 40 0/'0 9 0* :'(;2 ( /('0> 95 & '5'0 (52 0' ( ))+,, =04'5'4>?0&''/<0 A'4 (4 404 , +,++* 0220 =0/04 Incidentally, Criminal Appeal N of Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh, ag 2012. However, the said appeal w inability, in view of judgment of Ap Vs. Sayed Babalal H. 2010 (2) RCR -1- % +++ +,++!F 14(6,+ ((&4(+ ,+ GG22 G2(4 D* 9:8%C9 0* *04 *(<022 0 022 '&0'( ! ) +, %%*+,+-.'//0( 01 404 +6,7+,+ 204 >? 0 8<'.0* =<>? &(52 0' &* * ' 4 >? 022 0 < , * ' 4 0 @ A 0&&4!2(4<'# +* 0'4 022 '&0'( =0 0 (=4 ppeal No. 207/2012 was filed before t uh, against the aforesaid acquittal dat eal was dismissed on the ground of Apex Court reported in Damodar RCR (Criminal) 851. F# +,+7 +,+7 0 4 +,+# 01( 04 4 '* 4 04 efore the ttal dated ound of odar S. NAROTAM DASS 2025.10.29 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-AS-222-20 3. notice that in of M/s Celes 1868-70 of (Criminal) 2 1320], their appeal woul (correspondi passed in a complainant the term u/s 4. and (wa), 24 143 and 147 Apex Court through Leg ongoing deb acquittal in a Cr.P.C., has (supra) it ha 372 Cr.P.C. 5. Celestium F in the case o others (CR 2022 ( O&M ) Shorn of factual matrix of the that in the recent mandate of law laid elestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanase of 2025, deciced on 08.04.202 al) 208 : Law Finder Doc Id # 2 , their Lordships’ have answered in l would be maintainable under the sponding Section 413 of BNSS, 202 in a case instituted upon a priv ainant in such a proceeding as a ‘victi m u/s 2 (wa) of Cr.P.C. After encapsulating in detail th a), 24, 200, 372, 377, 378, 386 of Cr. d 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Court taken in the case of Mallikar Legal Representative Vs. State of K g debate as to whether the right of tal in a complaint case would fall und has been put to rest. Succinctly stat it has been held that 'victim' has a ri r.P.C. before the Court of Sessions. It is apposite to mention here ium Financial (supra) has been follo case of M/s Associated Road Carrie (CRM-A-885-MA-2013, decided -2- of the present case, it would suffice aw laid down by Apex Court in the ca nasekaran etc. [Criminal Appeal N .2025, reported as 2025 (30 RC # 2737710 : 2025 SCC OnLine S ed in affirmative the issue whether r the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P. S, 2023), against an order of acquit a private complaint, by treating t ‘victim’ within the meaning ascribed etail the provisions of Sections 2(d ),( of Cr.P.C.; Sections 138, 139, 141, 14 s Act, 1881; and the earlier view point likarjun Kodagali (dead) represent e of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752, t ght of victim to file an appeal again all under Section 372 or Section 378 ly stated, in Celestium Financial's ca as a right to file an appeal under Secti here that the judgment in the case n followed and relied upon by this Cou arriers Limited Vs. Manjit Singh a ed on 07.07.2025) as well as uffice to the case al Nos. RCR ine SC ether an Cr.P.C. acquittal ting the cribed to 2(d ),(n) 41, 142, point of esented , the l against 378 (4) al's case r Section case of his Court gh and l as by NAROTAM DASS 2025.10.29 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-AS-222-20 Co-ordinate (CRM-A-270 6. Celestium Associated R Bench of thi a different vi 7. learned Sess under Sectio to try the sam law, as expe 7.1 matters, the delay, if any raised in the 8. complete pa concerned, f 9. of. October 28 narotam Wheth Wheth 2022 ( O&M ) dinate Bench of this Court in the case 2700-MA-2018, decided on 02.07. Having considered the recen Financial's case (supra), and th iated Road Carriers Limited’s case of this Court in Satish Kumar’s (sup rent view in the present case. Accordingly, the present appea d Sessions Judge concerned to treat th Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same. The concerned Court shall s expeditiously as possible. Since similar directions are bei s, the concerned Appellate Court ne if any, involved in the case, for the in the appeal and its disposal on merit The Registry is directed to tran ete paper-book and record of the rned, forthwith. Pending miscellaneous applica 28, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -3- e case of Satish Kumar v. Jugal Kish 2.07.2025). recent mandate of Apex Court and the view taken by this Court in case (supra) as well as by Co-ordina (supra), there exists no ground to ta appeal is disposed of by directing t reat the present appeal as an appeal fil ntrust the same to any appropriate Cou shall decide the appeal on merits as p re being issued by this Court in seve urt need not to adhere to the aspect or the purpose of considering the iss merit. to transmit copy of this order along w f the case to learned Sessions Jud pplication, if any, also stands dispos ( SHEEL NAGU ) CHIEF JUSTICE Yes/No Yes/No Kishor ourt in rt in M/s ordinate d to take cting the eal filed ate Court its as per several spect of the issue with s Judge disposed NAROTAM DASS 2025.10.29 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment