IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 226 Ramesh Kumar Sham Lal CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present :- Mr. Mr. Rahul Verma, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Parveen Kumar Rohilla, Advocate, for the respondent. VINOD S. BHARDWAJ CRM-3451-2015 Prayer in the present application 44 days in filing the application for leave to appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same allowed and delay of 44 condoned. Main case The present application has of the Code of Criminal grant of leave to appeal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class stemming from Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. The complaint (supra) was filed on th cheque amounting on the record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent(s) vide judgment dated IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-215 Date of decision: VERSUS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ . Rajinder Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Rahul Verma, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Parveen Kumar Rohilla, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) 2015 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 delay of 44 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 judgment of acquittal dated passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class stemming from complaint dated 17.07.2012 filed under Section Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complaint (supra) was filed on th cheque amounting Rs.5,00,000/-. After assessing all the material available on the record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent(s) vide judgment dated 14.10.2014. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 215-MA-2015(O&M) Date of decision: 11.09.2025 ...Applicant ...Respondent VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Mr. Rahul Verma, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Parveen Kumar Rohilla, Advocate, 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 udgment of acquittal dated 14.10.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kaithal in a case filed under Section 138 of the The complaint (supra) was filed on the ground of dishonour of After assessing all the material available on the record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent(s) vide SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.18 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 226 CRM-A-215 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 Nagarathna, the following was held: “7.12 see and can be elaborated as follows: Firstly prefer an appeal whi 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 of 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 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 r Thirdly insert the proviso to sub 215-MA-2015 (O&M) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. 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. 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 of 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 2 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 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 ch 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, who, as a matter of right can prefer an appeal under Section 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 ight to prefer an appeal. , it is for this reason that the Parliament thought it fit to section 372 without mandating any SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.18 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 226 CRM-A-215 condition precedent to be fulfilled by the victim of an offence, which expression also includes the l 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 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 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 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 and Section 143 of the Act by an express intention incorporates 215-MA-2015 (O&M) condition precedent to be fulfilled by the victim of an offence, which expression also includes the l 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 ch 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 an offence to prefer an appeal on the 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 3 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 ch 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 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 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. , 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 a private complaint as per Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 143 of the Act by an express intention incorporates SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.18 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 226 CRM-A-215 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, wh 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 to treat the same as an appeal entrust the same to appropriate Court for its 5. The Registry is directed to send the complete paper the record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge 6. Disposed of accordingly. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 11.09.2025 Sumit Gusain Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 215-MA-2015 (O&M) 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 Cr.P.C.” Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court Financial (supra), the present application remanded to the learned Sessions Judge 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 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 the provisions of the Cr.P.C. in the matter of trial of such a deemed offence tried as a criminal offence. Therefore, the o 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, Kaithal with a direction filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and disposal on merits. The Registry is directed to send the complete paper-book and the record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal forthwith. Disposed of accordingly. Pending miscellaneous applications, if (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JUDGE SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.18 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document