IN THE 309 Darpan Katyal M/s D.R. Donalds Promoters and Developers Pvt Ltd and another 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 acquittal dated passed by the learned filed under Act’). 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 overruling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Darpan Katyal VERSUS M/s D.R. Donalds Promoters and Developers Pvt Ltd and another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Advocate for the appellant (through VC) **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present application has been preferred under Section the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CR.P.C.’) seeking grant of leave to appeal the judgment of acquittal dated passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 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., ded 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 overruling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-719-MA-2015(O&M) Date of Decision: July 30, 2025 .....Appellant VERSUS M/s D.R. Donalds Promoters and Developers Pvt Ltd and another .....Respondent HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Advocate for the appellant (through VC) The present application has been preferred under Section the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CR.P.C.’) seeking grant of leave to appeal the judgment of acquittal dated 06.02.201 Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Gurgaon, in a complaint uments Act, 1881 (hereinafter ‘NI 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., ded 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 .....Respondents Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Advocate for the appellant (through VC). The present application has been preferred under Section the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CR.P.C.’) 15 in a complaint (hereinafter ‘NI M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. , after considerable deliberation and comparative analysis of Sections 372 and 378(4) of Cr.P.C., ded 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 the doctrine of prospective Directorate of Revenue PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.01 18:14 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, Gurugram 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, Gurugram, forthwith. 5. Disposed of, accordingly. 6. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE July 30, 2025 P.C Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.01 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document