IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 226 Jaideep Grewal Vinod Garg CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present :- Mr. for the applicant. VINOD S. BHARDWAJ The present the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CR.P.C.’) judgment of acquittal dated Magistrate First Class 12.09.2013/05.10.2013 Instruments Act, 1881 2. The complaint (supra) was filed on th cheque issued by the accused 28.07.2013. After assessing all the material learned trial Court acquitted the respondent(s) vide judgment dated 09.08.2016. 3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208 discussion and comp Cr.P.C., concluded that the victim has a right to file an appeal under Section IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-AS- Date of decision: VERSUS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ r. Ashok Kumar Sehrawat, Advocate, for the applicant. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) The present appeal has been preferred under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CR.P.C.’) judgment of acquittal dated 09.08.2016 passed by the learned Magistrate First Class, Bhiwani in a case stemming from 2.09.2013/05.10.2013 filed under Section Instruments Act, 1881. The complaint (supra) was filed on th issued by the accused-respondent bearing No.673454 dated After assessing all the material available on the record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent(s) vide judgment dated 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 file an appeal under Section IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -139-2018(O&M) Date of decision: 15.09.2025 ...Applicant ...Respondent VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Ashok Kumar Sehrawat, Advocate, been preferred under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CR.P.C.’) against the passed by the learned Judicial in a case stemming from complaint dated 138 of the Negotiable The complaint (supra) was filed on the ground of dishonour of respondent bearing No.673454 dated available on the record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent(s) vide judgment dated M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208, after considerable arative interpretation of Sections 372 and 378(4) of Cr.P.C., concluded that the victim has a right to file an appeal under Section SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.16 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 226 CRA-AS-139 372 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 prefer an appeal which cannot be circumscribed by any condition precedent. In the instant case, a victim un 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, whose cheque has been dishonoured. Secondly 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 to prefer an appeal under Secti 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 insert the proviso to sub 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 139-2018(O&M) 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 prefer an appeal which cannot be circumscribed by any condition precedent. In the instant case, a victim un 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, 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 insert the proviso to sub-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, 2 372 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions. Speaking through Justice B.V. reasons for the above distinction are not far to see and can be elaborated as follows: , the victim of a crime must have an absolute right to 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. 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 C. A person convicted of a crime has the right on 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. , 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. against an order of acquittal, the State, SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.16 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 226 CRA-AS-139 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 th 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 b 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 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. Fifthly 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 ex 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 pr 139-2018(O&M) 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 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 b 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 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. 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 ex 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 pr 3 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 e State or a complainant to prefer an 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. , 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 right for the victim of an offence to prefer an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein as compared to a complainant. tate 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 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 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 SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.16 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 226 CRA-AS-139 read with the definition of victim under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C.” 4. Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Celestium Financial (supra) learned Sessions Judge appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to appropriate Court for its disposal on merits. 5. The Registry is directed to send the complete paper the record of the case to the learned 6. Disposed of accordingly. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 15.09.2025 Sumit Gusain Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 139-2018(O&M) 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 Celestium Financial (supra), the present learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani 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 the record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge Disposed of accordingly. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 4 read with the definition of victim under Section 2(wa) of the Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court , the present appeal is remanded to the with a direction to treat the same as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to The Registry is directed to send the complete paper-book and Sessions Judge, Bhiwani forthwith. Disposed of accordingly. Pending miscellaneous applications, if (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JUDGE SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.16 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document