IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 235-5 M/s Harpreet Singh & sons Bir Parkash Malhotra CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present :- Ms. Bharti, VINOD S. BHARDWAJ CRM-28145-2018 Prayer in the 994 days in filing the application for leave to appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same allowed and delay of 994 condoned. Main case The present application has of the Code of Criminal grant of leave to appeal learned Judicial Magistrate complaint No. NACT Instruments Act, 1881, vide which the complaint filed by the applicant was dismissed for want of prosecution. 2. The complaint (supra) was filed on t IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-1624 Date of decision: M/s Harpreet Singh & sons VERSUS Bir Parkash Malhotra HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Ms. Bharti, Advocate, for the applicant(s). ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) 2018 ayer 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, the same allowed and delay of 994 days in filing application The present application has been preferred under of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘Cr grant of leave to appeal against the order dated learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar complaint No. NACT-30694-2013 filed under Section 138 of N Instruments Act, 1881, vide which the complaint filed by the applicant was for want of prosecution. The complaint (supra) was filed on t IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1624-MA-2018(O&M) Date of decision: 03.09.2025 ...Applicant(s) ...Respondent(s) VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Advocate, for the applicant(s). 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 application for leave to appeal is been preferred under Section 378(4) Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking dated 17.07.2015 passed by the Jalandhar, in a case stemming from filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, vide which the complaint filed by the applicant was The complaint (supra) was filed on the ground of dishonour of SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.08 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 235-5 CRM-A cheque of Rs.9,00,000/ has dismissed in default the complaint filed by the applicant for want of prosecution, which amounts to acquittal of the accused. 3. The Hon’ble Supreme 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 Secti 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 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 committe 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, as a matter of right can 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 th A-1624-MA-2018(O&M) ,00,000/-. The learned trial Court has dismissed in default the complaint filed by the applicant for want of prosecution, which amounts to acquittal of the accused. 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 Secti 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 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 committe 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 th 2 learned trial Court vide order dated 17.07.2015 has dismissed in default the complaint filed by the applicant for want of prosecution, which amounts to acquittal of the accused. 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: , 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. , the right of a victim of a crime must be placed on par with the right of an accused who has suffered a conviction, 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 SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.08 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 235-5 CRM-A 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 against an order of acquittal, the State, through the Public Prosecutor can prefer an appeal even if the complainant does not pref 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 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 right for the victim of an therein as compared to a complainant. Fifthly under Section 138 of the Act is conspicuous by its absence. This A-1624-MA-2018(O&M) 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 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 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 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 3 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 er 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 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 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 SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.08 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 235-5 CRM-A is because the complaint filed under 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 offe 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.” 4. Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Celestium Financial (supra) appeal is remanded direction to treat the same as an appeal filed under S 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 Sessions Judge, 6. Disposed of accord any, also stand disposed of. 03.09.2025 Sumit Gusain Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable A-1624-MA-2018(O&M) is because the complaint filed under 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 offe 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 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 S 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 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 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 application seeking leave to to the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar 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, Jalandhar forthwith. ingly. Pending miscellaneous applications, if (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JUDGE SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.08 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document