IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 234 Sandeep Kumar M/s Yire Trade CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present :- Mr. for the applicant. VINOD S. BHARDWAJ CRM-13871-2024 Prayer in the present application i 71 days in filing the application for leave to appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, th allowed and delay of 71 condoned. Main case The present application has been preferred under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CR.P.C.’) seeking grant of leave to appeal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class stemming from complaint Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. It is noticed that the instant application pertains to the year 2024, however, no one has IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-442 Date of decision: Sandeep Kumar VERSUS M/s Yire Trade through its partners HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Mr. Divyanshu Goyal as Legal Aid Counsel, for the applicant. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) 2024 Prayer in the present application is for condonation of delay of days in filing the application for leave to appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, th allowed and delay of 71 days in filing the application for leav The present application has been preferred under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CR.P.C.’) seeking grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated y the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class stemming from complaint dated 15.05.2017 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It is noticed that the instant application pertains to the year 2024, however, no one has been entered appearance on behalf of the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 442-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 04.09.2025 ...Applicant ...Respondent VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Goyal as Legal Aid Counsel, s for condonation of delay of days in filing the application for leave to appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is days in filing the application for leave to appeal is The present application has been preferred under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CR.P.C.’) seeking the judgment of acquittal dated 09.10.2023 y the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Fatehabad in a case dated 15.05.2017 filed under Section 138 of It is noticed that the instant application pertains to the year been entered appearance on behalf of the SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.08 20:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 234 CRM applicant, hence, it is deemed expedient to nominate a Legal Aid Counsel. Mr. Divyansh Goyal, Advocate, who is present in the Court is appointed as the Legal Aid Counsel to represent the case on behalf of at a decision. He has gone through the case file and submits that the present application has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 09.10.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Fatehabad, in No.NACT/371/2017 1881. He fairly submits that in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208 Court of Sessions. 3. The complaint (supra) was filed on th cheque of Rs.5,00,000 record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent(s) vide judgment dated 09.10.2023. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208 discussion and comparative interpretation of Sections 372 and 378(4) of Cr.P.C., concluded that the victim has a right to 372 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions. Speaking through Justice B.V. Nagarathna, the following was held: “7.12 see and can be elaborated as follows: Firstly CRM-A-442-2024 (O&M)) applicant, hence, it is deemed expedient to nominate a Legal Aid Counsel. Mr. Divyansh Goyal, Advocate, who is present in the Court is appointed as the Legal Aid Counsel to represent the case on behalf of at a decision. He has gone through the case file and submits that the present application has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 09.10.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Fatehabad, in NACT/371/2017 filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, . He fairly submits that in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208, the applicant would have a reme Court of Sessions. The complaint (supra) was filed on th ,00,000/-. After assessing all the material available on the record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent(s) vide judgment 23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208 discussion and comparative interpretation of Sections 372 and 378(4) of Cr.P.C., concluded that the victim has a right to 372 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions. Speaking through Justice B.V. Nagarathna, the following was held: 7.12 The reasons for the above distinction are not far to see and can be elaborated as follows: Firstly, the victim of a crime must have an absolute right to 2 applicant, hence, it is deemed expedient to nominate a Legal Aid Counsel. Mr. Divyansh Goyal, Advocate, who is present in the Court is appointed as the Legal Aid Counsel to represent the case on behalf of applicant to arrive at a decision. He has gone through the case file and submits that the present application has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 09.10.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Fatehabad, in complaint ed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, . He fairly submits that in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., the applicant would have a remedy before the The complaint (supra) was filed on the ground of dishonour of . After assessing all the material available on the record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent(s) vide judgment M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208, after considerable discussion and comparative interpretation of Sections 372 and 378(4) of Cr.P.C., concluded that the victim has a right to file an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions. Speaking through Justice B.V. The reasons for the above distinction are not far to see and can be elaborated as follows: m of a crime must have an absolute right to SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.08 20:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 234 CRM prefer an appeal which cannot be circumscribed by any condition precedent. In the instant case, a victim under Section 138 of the Act, i.e., a payee or the holder of a cheque is a person who has suffered the impa a person who is charged of the offence, namely, the accused, whose cheque has been dishonoured. Secondly with the right of an accused who has suffered a conviction, who, 374 of the Cr.P.C. A person convicted of a crime has the right to prefer an appeal under Section 374 as a matter of right and not being subjected to any conditions. Similarly, a victim of a crime, wh must have a right to prefer an appeal. Thirdly insert the proviso to sub condition precedent to be fulfilled b which expression also includes the legal representatives of a deceased victim who can prefer an appeal. On the contrary, as against an order of acquittal, the State, through the Public Prosecutor can prefer an appeal even if the complainant does not prefer such an appeal, though of course such an appeal is with the leave of the court. However, it is not always necessary for the State or a complainant to prefer an CRM-A-442-2024 (O&M)) prefer an appeal which cannot be circumscribed by any condition precedent. In the instant case, a victim under Section 138 of the Act, i.e., a payee or the holder of a cheque is a person who has suffered the impact of the offence committed by a person who is charged of the offence, namely, the accused, whose cheque has been dishonoured. Secondly, the right of a victim of a crime must be placed on par with the right of an accused who has suffered a conviction, who, as a matter of right can prefer an appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. A person convicted of a crime has the right to prefer an appeal under Section 374 as a matter of right and not being subjected to any conditions. Similarly, a victim of a crime, whatever be the nature of the crime, unconditionally must have a right to prefer an appeal. Thirdly, it is for this reason that the Parliament thought it fit to insert the proviso to sub-section 372 without mandating any condition precedent to be fulfilled b which expression also includes the legal representatives of a deceased victim who can prefer an appeal. On the contrary, as against an order of acquittal, the State, through the Public Prosecutor can prefer an appeal even if the complainant does not prefer such an appeal, though of course such an appeal is with the leave of the court. However, it is not always necessary for the State or a complainant to prefer an 3 prefer an appeal which cannot be circumscribed by any condition precedent. In the instant case, a victim under Section 138 of the Act, i.e., a payee or the holder of a cheque is a ct of the offence committed by a person who is charged of the offence, namely, the accused, whose cheque has been dishonoured. , the right of a victim of a crime must be placed on par with the right of an accused who has suffered a conviction, as a matter of right can prefer an appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. A person convicted of a crime has the right to prefer an appeal under Section 374 as a matter of right and not being subjected to any conditions. Similarly, a victim of a atever be the nature of the crime, unconditionally must have a right to prefer an appeal. , it is for this reason that the Parliament thought it fit to section 372 without mandating any condition precedent to be fulfilled by the victim of an offence, which expression also includes the legal representatives of a deceased victim who can prefer an appeal. On the contrary, as against an order of acquittal, the State, through the Public Prosecutor can prefer an appeal even if the complainant does not prefer such an appeal, though of course such an appeal is with the leave of the court. However, it is not always necessary for the State or a complainant to prefer an SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.08 20:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 234 CRM appeal. But when it comes to a victim’s right to prefer an appeal, the High Court under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. would be contrary to what has been intended by the Parliament by insertion of the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. Fourthly circumscribe the victim’s right to prefer an appeal just as it has with regard to a complainant or the State filing an appeal. On the other hand, the Parliament has inserted the proviso to Section 372 so as to envisage a superior an offence to prefer an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein as compared to a complainant. Fifthly under Section 138 of the Act is conspicuous by its absence. This is because nature of a private complaint as per Section and Section 143 of the Act by an express intention incorporates the provisions of the Cr.P.C. in the matter of trial of such a deemed offenc complainant, who is the victim of a dishonour of cheque must be construed to be victim in terms of the proviso to Section 372 read with the definition of victim under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C.” 5. Therefore, in CRM-A-442-2024 (O&M)) appeal. But when it comes to a victim’s right to prefer an appeal, the insistence on seeking special leave to appeal from the High Court under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. would be contrary to what has been intended by the Parliament by insertion of the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. Fourthly, the Parliament has not amended Section 378 to circumscribe the victim’s right to prefer an appeal just as it has with regard to a complainant or the State filing an appeal. On the other hand, the Parliament has inserted the proviso to Section 372 so as to envisage a superior an offence to prefer an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein as compared to a complainant. Fifthly, the involvement of the State in respect of an offence under Section 138 of the Act is conspicuous by its absence. This is because the complaint filed under that provision is in the nature of a private complaint as per Section and Section 143 of the Act by an express intention incorporates the provisions of the Cr.P.C. in the matter of trial of such a deemed offence tried as a criminal offence. Therefore, the complainant, who is the victim of a dishonour of cheque must be construed to be victim in terms of the proviso to Section 372 read with the definition of victim under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C.” Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court 4 appeal. But when it comes to a victim’s right to prefer an the insistence on seeking special leave to appeal from the High Court under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. would be contrary to what has been intended by the Parliament by insertion of the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. ot amended Section 378 to circumscribe the victim’s right to prefer an appeal just as it has with regard to a complainant or the State filing an appeal. On the other hand, the Parliament has inserted the proviso to Section 372 so as to envisage a superior right for the victim of an offence to prefer an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein as compared to a complainant. , the involvement of the State in respect of an offence under Section 138 of the Act is conspicuous by its absence. This the complaint filed under that provision is in the nature of a private complaint as per Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 143 of the Act by an express intention incorporates the provisions of the Cr.P.C. in the matter of trial of such a e tried as a criminal offence. Therefore, the complainant, who is the victim of a dishonour of cheque must be construed to be victim in terms of the proviso to Section 372 read with the definition of victim under Section 2(wa) of the view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.08 20:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 234 CRM in Celestium Financial (supra) appeal is remanded direction to treat the same as an appeal filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to appropriate Court for its disposal on merits. 6. The Registry is directed to send the complete paper the record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge, 7. Disposed of accordingly. Pending misc any, also stand disposed of. 8. A copy of this order be sent to the High Court Legal Service Committee for information and necessary action. 04.09.2025 Sumit Gusain Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable CRM-A-442-2024 (O&M)) Celestium Financial (supra), the present application seeking leave to remanded to the learned Sessions Judge, direction to treat the same as an appeal filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to appropriate Court for its disposal on merits. The Registry is directed to send the complete paper the record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Disposed of accordingly. Pending misc any, also stand disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the High Court Legal Service Committee for information and necessary action. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 5 , the present application seeking leave to to the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad with a direction to treat the same as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to appropriate Court for its disposal on merits. The Registry is directed to send the complete paper-book and the record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad forthwith. Disposed of accordingly. Pending miscellaneous applications, if A copy of this order be sent to the High Court Legal Service Committee for information and necessary action. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JUDGE SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.08 20:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document