IN THE 273 M/s Amrik Trading Company Pritpal Singh CORAM: Present : HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CR.P.C.’) seeking grant of leave to appeal the judgment of passed by the learned filed under 2. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208 deliberation and comparative analysis 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. Reliance in this regard can also be placed on Satish Kumar Versus Jugal Kishor decided on 02.07.2025. Further still, applying the doctrine of prospective overruling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M/s Amrik Trading Company VERSUS Pritpal Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR None for the appellant. Ms. Shelika, Advocate and Mr.Monu Sharma, Advocate for Mr.Ankur Malik, Advocate for the respondent. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present application has been preferred under 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CR.P.C.’) seeking grant of leave to appeal the judgment of passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 filed under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208 deliberation and comparative analysis 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. Reliance in this regard can also be Satish Kumar Versus Jugal Kishor decided on 02.07.2025. Further still, applying the doctrine of prospective overruling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-1816-MA-2018(O&M) Date of Decision : July 29, 2025 .....Appellant VERSUS .....Respondent HARPREET SINGH BRAR Ms. Shelika, Advocate and Mr.Monu Sharma, Advocate for Mr.Ankur Malik, Advocate for the respondent. 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 the judgment of acquittal dated 19.01.2018 Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Panipat, in a complaint of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208, after considerable deliberation and comparative analysis 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. Reliance in this regard can also be Satish Kumar Versus Jugal Kishor in CRM-A-2700-MA-2018 decided on 02.07.2025. Further still, applying the doctrine of prospective overruling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Directorate of Revenue (O&M) , 2025 Appellant .....Respondent Ms. Shelika, Advocate and Mr.Monu Sharma, Advocate for Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CR.P.C.’) 19.01.2018 in a complaint M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. , after considerable deliberation and comparative analysis 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. Reliance in this regard can also be 2018 decided on 02.07.2025. Further still, applying the doctrine of prospective Directorate of Revenue PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.07.31 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 Intelligence Vs. Raj Kumar Arora in SCC Online 819 has clarified that as a rule of thumb, judgments rendered shall be applicable retrospectively. 3. Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Celestium Financial (supra), the present application seeking leave to appeal is remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge, Panipat with a direction to treat the same as filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C and entrust it to appropriate Court for its disposal on merits. 4. The Registry is directed to send the complete paper-book and the record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Panipat, forthwith. 5. Disposed of, accordingly. 6. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE July 29, 2025 P.C Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.07.31 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document