[217] Balkar Singh Sham Coram : Present: SURYA PARTAP SINGH, 1. to appeal against the judgment of acquittal, passed in a complaint case instituted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument (hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’), whereby, a complaint filed by the applicant was dismissed and the accused acquitted. 2. proceedings is whether an appeal against a judgment o the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1 regard to the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, can be entertained at the instance of complainant under the proviso Section 372 3. Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. 2025 INSC 804 : 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208’ the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that a complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 o IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-326 Date of Decision : Balkar Singh versus HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH None for the applicant. Mr. Abhinav Aggarwal, Advocate *** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (ORAL) The applicant has filed the present application seeking for leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal, passed in a complaint case instituted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument (hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’), whereby, a complaint filed by the applicant was dismissed and the accused acquitted. The limited question arising for consideration in the present proceedings is whether an appeal against a judgment o the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1 regard to the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, can be entertained at the instance of complainant under the proviso Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.? The issue is no longer res integra Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. 2025 INSC 804 : 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208’ the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that a complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act, qualifies as a ‘victim’ under IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 326-MA-2017 Date of Decision : 11.08.2025 …Applicant ….Respondent SURYA PARTAP SINGH Advocate for the respondent. The applicant has filed the present application seeking for leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal, passed in a complaint case instituted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’), whereby, a complaint filed by the applicant was dismissed and the accused acquitted. The limited question arising for consideration in the present proceedings is whether an appeal against a judgment of acquittal, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class in a complaint case with regard to the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, can be entertained at the instance of complainant under the proviso res integra. In ‘M/s Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. 2025 INSC 804 : 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208’ the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that a complainant in a f the NI Act, qualifies as a ‘victim’ under The applicant has filed the present application seeking for leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal, passed in a complaint case s Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’), whereby, a complaint filed by the The limited question arising for consideration in the present passed by Class in a complaint case with regard to the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, can be entertained at the instance of complainant under the proviso to M/s Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. 2025 INSC 804 : 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208’ the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that a complainant in a RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.12 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-326-MA-2017 -2- Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C., being the person who suffers financial loss due to dishonour of a cheque. Consequently, such a complainant is entitled to pursue an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC without the requirement of seeking special leave under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. In the present case, although, for want of appearance of applicant, the instant application can be dismissed in default, yet in my opinion, the ends of justice would be better served if the instant application seeking for leave to appeal is treated as memorandum of appeal and the same is forwarded to the Sessions Judge, which will provide additional forum to the parties to redress their grievance. 4. 4. Adopting a pragmatic and justice oriented approach and guided by the principle that procedural rule must serve and not obstruct the course of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct that the present appeal be treated as one authoritatively instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of CrPC. 5. In conclusion, this Court is duty bound to harmonize contrasting provisions in a manner that best serves the interest of justice, using the method of librere cherche scientifique i.e. free scientific research. Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial (supra) and the fact that the present application for leave to appeal is pending since 2017, learned Sessions Judge, Patiala is directed to treat the present appeal, as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to appropriate Court for its disposal. 6. The concerned Appellate Court shall proceed to decide the appeal expeditiously, without being impeded by any delay in filing the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.12 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-326-MA-2017 -3- appeal, in view of the legal position now clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. The Registry is directed to transmit this order along with the copy of the complete paper-book and return the trial Court record, if received, to the learned Sessions Judge concerned. 8. Disposed of accordingly. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 11.08.2025 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.12 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document