CRM-A-1320 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 267 YES BANK LTD. THROUGH ITS ASSIGNEE INDIABULLS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. PERURI SAI KIRAN CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The present application has been filed impugned judgment dated 15.05.2025 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, 21(1C) of Payment and Settlement System Act, 2007 was dismissed acquitted of the offence alleged in the complaint. 2. The limited question arising for consideration in the present proceedings is whether an appeal against an order of acquittal passed in complaint case under Section 2007can be entertained under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 413 of BNSS) at the instance of the complainant? 1320-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision: 24.02.2026 YES BANK LTD. THROUGH ITS ASSIGNEE INDIABULLS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. Versus PERURI SAI KIRAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) The present application has been filed impugned judgment dated 15.05.2025 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, whereby, the complaint under Section 21(1C) of Payment and Settlement System Act, 2007 ed for want of prosecution, as such the accused acquitted of the offence alleged in the complaint. The limited question arising for consideration in the present proceedings is whether an appeal against an order of acquittal passed in complaint case under Section 21(1C) of Payment and Settlement System Act, can be entertained under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 413 of BNSS) at the instance of the complainant? IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-1320-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.02.2026 YES BANK LTD. THROUGH ITS ASSIGNEE INDIABULLS ASSET ….Appellant ....Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate The present application has been filed seeking to challenge the impugned judgment dated 15.05.2025 passed by the Court of learned Judicial whereby, the complaint under Section 21(1C) of Payment and Settlement System Act, 2007, filed by the appellant , as such the accused-respondent stood acquitted of the offence alleged in the complaint. The limited question arising for consideration in the present proceedings is whether an appeal against an order of acquittal passed in a 21(1C) of Payment and Settlement System Act, can be entertained under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 413 of BNSS) at the instance of the complainant? YES BANK LTD. THROUGH ITS ASSIGNEE INDIABULLS ASSET Appellant ....Respondent seeking to challenge the impugned judgment dated 15.05.2025 passed by the Court of learned Judicial whereby, the complaint under Section appellant respondent stood The limited question arising for consideration in the present a 21(1C) of Payment and Settlement System Act, can be entertained under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. (now GURPREET 2026.02.28 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-A-1320 3. The issue is no longer 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 th to the 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 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under: 1320-2025 (O&M) -2- The issue is no longer res integra. 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 the 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 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under: “8. The right to prefer an appeal is no doubt a statutory right and the right to prefer an appeal by an accused against a conviction is not merely a statutory also be construed to be a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. If that is so, then the right of a victim of an offence to prefer an appeal cannot be equated with the right of the State or the complainant to prefer an appeal. Hence, the statutory rigours for filing of an appeal by the State or by a complainant against an order of acquittal cannot be read into the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC so as to restrict the right of a victim to file an appeal on the groun when none exists. 9. In the circumstances, we find that Section 138 of the Act being in the nature of a penal provision by a deeming fiction against an accused who is said to have committed an offence under the said provision, if acqu proceeded against by a victim of the said offence, namely, the person who is entitled to the proceeds of a cheque which has been dishonoured, in terms of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, as a victim. As already noted, a victim of an offence could also be a complainant. In such a case, an appeal can be preferred either under the proviso to Section 372 or under Section 378 by such a victim. In the absence of the proviso to Section 372, a victim of an offence could not have filed an appeal was also a complainant, in which event he could maintain an appeal if special leave to appeal had been granted by the High Court and if no such special leave was granted then his appeal would not be maintainable at all. On the 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 e Cr.P.C., being the person who suffers financial loss due to the 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 relevant paragraph is reproduced as under:- 8. The right to prefer an appeal is no doubt a statutory right and the right to prefer an appeal by an accused against a conviction is not merely a statutory right but can also be construed to be a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. If that is so, then the right of a victim of an offence to prefer an appeal cannot be equated with the right of the State or the complainant to an appeal. Hence, the statutory rigours for filing of an appeal by the State or by a complainant against an order of acquittal cannot be read into the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC so as to restrict the right of a victim to file an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein, 9. In the circumstances, we find that Section 138 of the Act being in the nature of a penal provision by a deeming fiction against an accused who is said to have committed an offence under the said provision, if acquitted, can be proceeded against by a victim of the said offence, namely, the person who is entitled to the proceeds of a cheque which has been dishonoured, in terms of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, as a victim. As already noted, a fence could also be a complainant. In such a case, an appeal can be preferred either under the proviso to Section 372 or under Section 378 by such a victim. In the absence of the proviso to Section 372, a victim of an offence could not have filed an appeal as such, unless he was also a complainant, in which event he could maintain an appeal if special leave to appeal had been granted by the High Court and if no such special leave was granted then his appeal would not be maintainable at all. On the 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 e Cr.P.C., being the person who suffers financial loss due to the dishonour of a cheque. Consequently, such a complainant is entitled to pursue an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the special leave under Section 8. The right to prefer an appeal is no doubt a statutory right and the right to prefer an appeal by an accused right but can also be construed to be a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. If that is so, then the right of a victim of an offence to prefer an appeal cannot be equated with the right of the State or the complainant to an appeal. Hence, the statutory rigours for filing of an appeal by the State or by a complainant against an order of acquittal cannot be read into the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC so as to restrict the right of a ds mentioned therein, 9. In the circumstances, we find that Section 138 of the Act being in the nature of a penal provision by a deeming fiction against an accused who is said to have committed itted, can be proceeded against by a victim of the said offence, namely, the person who is entitled to the proceeds of a cheque which has been dishonoured, in terms of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, as a victim. As already noted, a fence could also be a complainant. In such a case, an appeal can be preferred either under the proviso to Section 372 or under Section 378 by such a victim. In the absence of the proviso to Section 372, a victim of an as such, unless he was also a complainant, in which event he could maintain an appeal if special leave to appeal had been granted by the High Court and if no such special leave was granted then his appeal would not be maintainable at all. On the GURPREET 2026.02.28 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-A-1320 4. In the light of the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and considering the view taken by this Court in subsequent cases including in Rajat Deep Versus as also the guiding principle that procedural rule must serve and not obstruct the course of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct concerned Sessions Judge that the present appeal be treated as instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to an appropriate Court for disposal on merits. 5. The concerned Appellate Court shall proceed to decide the appeal expeditiously. 1320-2025 (O&M) -3- other hand, if the victim of an offence, who may or may not be the complainant, proceeds under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, then in our view, such a victim need not seek special leave to appeal from the High Court. In other words, the victim of an offenc right to prefer an appeal, inter alia, against an order of acquittal in terms of the proviso to Section 372 without seeking any special leave to appeal from the High Court only on the grounds mentioned therein. A person who is a complainant under Section 200 of the CrPC who complains about the offence committed by a person who is charged as an accused under Section 138 of the Act, thus has the right to prefer an appeal as a victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC. 10. As already noted, the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC was inserted in the statute book only with effect from 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such insertion must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussio victim of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the victim of an offence is a complainant, he can still proceed under the proviso to Section 372 and need not advert to sub (4) of Section 378 of the CrPC.” In the light of the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and considering the view taken by this Court in subsequent cases including in Versus Prince, CRM-A-1320-MA as also the guiding principle that procedural rule must serve and not obstruct the course of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct concerned Sessions Judge that the present appeal be treated as instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to an appropriate Court for disposal on merits. The concerned Appellate Court shall proceed to decide the appeal expeditiously. d, if the victim of an offence, who may or may not be the complainant, proceeds under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, then in our view, such a victim need not seek special leave to appeal from the High Court. In other words, the victim of an offence would have the right to prefer an appeal, inter alia, against an order of acquittal in terms of the proviso to Section 372 without seeking any special leave to appeal from the High Court only on the grounds mentioned therein. A person who is a t under Section 200 of the CrPC who complains about the offence committed by a person who is charged as an accused under Section 138 of the Act, thus has the right to prefer an appeal as a victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC. y noted, the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC was inserted in the statute book only with effect from 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such insertion must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the victim of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the victim of an offence is a complainant, he can still proceed under the roviso to Section 372 and need not advert to sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the CrPC.” In the light of the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and considering the view taken by this Court in subsequent cases including in MA-2016, decided on 21.07.2025, as also the guiding principle that procedural rule must serve and not obstruct the course of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct concerned Sessions Judge that the present appeal be treated as one authoritatively instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to an appropriate Court for disposal on merits. The concerned Appellate Court shall proceed to decide the d, if the victim of an offence, who may or may not be the complainant, proceeds under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, then in our view, such a victim need not seek special leave to appeal from the High Court. e would have the right to prefer an appeal, inter alia, against an order of acquittal in terms of the proviso to Section 372 without seeking any special leave to appeal from the High Court only on the grounds mentioned therein. A person who is a t under Section 200 of the CrPC who complains about the offence committed by a person who is charged as an accused under Section 138 of the Act, thus has the right to prefer an appeal as a victim under the y noted, the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC was inserted in the statute book only with effect from 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such insertion must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a n, we hold that the victim of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the victim of an offence is a complainant, he can still proceed under the section In the light of the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and considering the view taken by this Court in subsequent cases including in , as also the guiding principle that procedural rule must serve and not obstruct the course of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct concerned one authoritatively instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same The concerned Appellate Court shall proceed to decide the GURPREET 2026.02.28 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-A-1320 6. The Registry is d the complete paper the concerned Sessions Judge 7. Disposed of accordingly. 24.02.2026 Gurpreet 1320-2025 (O&M) -4- The Registry is directed to transmit this order along with copy of the complete paper-book and return the Trial Court record, if any received, to the concerned Sessions Judge forthwith. Disposed of accordingly. i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No irected to transmit this order along with copy of book and return the Trial Court record, if any received, to (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No irected to transmit this order along with copy of book and return the Trial Court record, if any received, to (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) GURPREET 2026.02.28 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.