IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 234-2 Padam Singh Mahinder Kumar Aggarwal and another CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present :- Mr. Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate (through V.C.), for respondent VINOD S. BHARDWAJ The present application of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CR.P.C.’) seeking grant of leave to appeal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Jagadhri in a case stemming from 07.06.2010/02.03.2012 Act, 1881. 2. The complaint (supra) was filed on t cheque amounting Rs.15,00,000/ on the record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent(s) vide judgment dated 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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-483 Date of decision: VERSUS Kumar Aggarwal and another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Mr. R.S. Budhwar, Advocate, for the applicant(s). Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate (through V.C.), for respondent(s) No.1 ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) 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 against the judgment of acquittal dated passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class in a case stemming from criminal 07.06.2010/02.03.2012 filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments The complaint (supra) was filed on t cheque amounting Rs.15,00,000/-. After assessing all the material available on the record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent(s) vide judgment dated 24.12.2024. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial 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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 483-MA-2015(O&M) Date of decision: 03.09.2025 ...Applicant(s) ...Respondent(s) VINOD S. BHARDWAJ R.S. Budhwar, Advocate, for the applicant(s). Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate (through V.C.), been preferred under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CR.P.C.’) seeking the judgment of acquittal dated 24.12.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Yamuna Nagar at criminal complaint No. 2715 dated filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments 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 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 SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.08 20:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 234-2 CRM 372 of Cr.P.C. before the Court Nagarathna, the following was held: “7.12 see and can be elaborated as follows: Firstly prefer an appeal 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 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 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 Thirdly insert the proviso to sub condition precedent to be fulfilled by the victim of an offence, which expression also includes th deceased victim who can prefer an appeal. On the contrary, as against an order of acquittal, the State, CRM-A-483-MA-2015(O&M) 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 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 th deceased victim who can prefer an appeal. On the contrary, as against an order of acquittal, the State, 2 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 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 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 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, SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.08 20:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 234-2 CRM 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 Hi 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 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 CRM-A-483-MA-2015(O&M) 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 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 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 3 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 gh 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 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 SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.08 20:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 234-2 CRM 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 Jagadhri with a direction to treat the same as an appeal 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to appropri on merits. 5. The Registry is directed to send the complete paper 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. 03.09.2025 Sumit Gusain Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable CRM-A-483-MA-2015(O&M) 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 with a direction to treat the same as an appeal 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to appropri 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 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, 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 The Registry is directed to 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 2025.09.08 20:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document