Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 21841 (PNJ)

M/S AMBAY BRICKS COMPANY v. RAI SINGH KAMBOJ

CRM-A/1386/2018 · 2025-09-15

Vinod S Bhardwaj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 228-3 M/s Ambay Bricks Company Rai Singh Kamboj CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present :- Mr. Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate, for the applicant. VINOD S. BHARDWAJ The present application has of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CR.P.C.’) grant of leave to appeal passed by the learned Jagadhri in a case stemming from Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 2. The complaint (supra) was filed on th cheque of Rs.45 record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent(s) vide judgment dated 03.04.2018 3. 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 file an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions. Speaking through Justice B.V. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-1386 Date of decision: M/s Ambay Bricks Company VERSUS Singh Kamboj HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ r. Bhaskar Kandpal, Advocate for Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate, for the applicant. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) The present application has been preferred under of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CR.P.C.’) grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in a case stemming from complaint dated 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 The complaint (supra) was filed on th 45,000/-. After assessing all the material available on the record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent(s) vide judgment 03.04.2018. 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 372 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions. Speaking through Justice B.V. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1386-MA-2018(O&M) Date of decision: 15.09.2025 ...Applicant ...Respondent VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Bhaskar Kandpal, Advocate for Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate, for the applicant. been preferred under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CR.P.C.’) seeking judgment of acquittal dated 03.04.2018 Magistrate First Class, Yamuna Nagar at complaint dated 04.10.2016 filed under 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complaint (supra) was filed on the ground of dishonour of 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. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.16 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 228-3 CRM-A Nagarathna, the followi “7.12 see and can be elaborated as follows: Firstly prefer an appeal which cannot be circumscribed by any condition precedent. In the 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 pre 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 ap On the contrary, as against an order of acquittal, the State, through the Public Prosecutor can prefer an appeal even if the A-1386-MA-2018(O&M) 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 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, 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 by the victim of an offence, which expression also includes the legal representatives of a deceased victim who can prefer an ap On the contrary, as against an order of acquittal, the State, through the Public Prosecutor can prefer an appeal even if the 2 The 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 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. , 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 C. A person convicted of a crime has the right fer 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. 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 SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.16 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 228-3 CRM-A complainant does not prefer such an appeal, though of course such an appeal is with the leave of the court. However, it is no 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 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 t 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 Sectio 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 read with the definition of victim under Section 2(wa) of the A-1386-MA-2018(O&M) complainant does not prefer such an appeal, though of course such an appeal is with the leave of the court. However, it is no 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 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 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 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 3 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 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 he 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 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. n 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 victim in terms of the proviso to Section 372 read with the definition of victim under Section 2(wa) of the SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.16 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 228-3 CRM-A Cr.P.C.” 4. Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Celestium Financial (supra) appeal is remanded Jagadhri with a direction to treat the same as an appeal 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to appropriate Court for its disposal on merits. 5. The Registry is directed to the record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge Jagadhri forthwith. 6. Disposed of accordingly. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 15.09.2025 Sumit Gusain Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable A-1386-MA-2018(O&M) Cr.P.C.” Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court Celestium Financial (supra), the present application remanded to the learned Sessions Judge with a direction to treat the same as an appeal 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to appropriate Court for its disposal The Registry is directed to send the complete paper the record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge forthwith. 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 Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court , the present application seeking leave to to the learned Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at with a direction to treat the same as an appeals filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to appropriate Court for its disposal send the complete paper-book and the record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at 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