IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 238-2 Mahesh Kumar M/s Paul TV Centre and another CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present :- Mr. Mr. Karan Bansal, Advocate VINOD S. BHARDWAJ The present of the Code of Criminal grant of leave to appeal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class stemming from Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Code, 1860. 2. The complaint cheque amounting 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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-41 Date of decision: VERSUS Paul TV Centre & Furniture House through its Proprietor Chinnder Pal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ . Achin Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Karan Bansal, Advocate, for the ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) The present application has been preferred under Section 378(4) 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 03.06.2019 filed under Section Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal The complaint (supra) was filed on th cheque amounting Rs.25,00,000/-. After assessing all the material available on the record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent(s) vide judgment dated 25.01.2024. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208 discussion and comparative interpretation of Sections 372 and 378(4) of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 417-2024(O&M) Date of decision: 11.09.2025 ...Applicant & Furniture House through its Proprietor Chinnder Pal ...Respondents VINOD S. BHARDWAJ , for the applicant. has been preferred under Section 378(4) Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking judgment of acquittal dated 25.01.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda in a case filed under Section 138 of the read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal (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 SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.12 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 238-2 CRM 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 see and can be elaborated as follows: Firstly 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 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 appe 374 of the Cr 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, uncon must have a right to prefer an appeal. Thirdly insert the proviso to sub condition precedent to be fulfilled by the victim of an offence, which expres M-A-417-2024 (O&M) Cr.P.C., concluded that the victim has a right to file an appeal under Section .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 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 appe 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, uncon 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 the legal representatives of a 2 Cr.P.C., concluded that the victim has a right to file an appeal under Section .C. before the Court 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 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 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 must have 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, sion also includes the legal representatives of a SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.12 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 238-2 CRM 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 app 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 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 circumscribe t 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 pr 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 provisio 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 M-A-417-2024 (O&M) 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 app 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 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 grounds mentioned 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 provisio 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 3 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 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 he 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 efer 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 nature of 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 SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.12 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 238-2 CRM deemed offence tried as a criminal offence. Therefore 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.” 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 disposal on merits. 5. The Registry is directed to send the complete paper the record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge 6. Disposed of accordingly. any, also stand disposed of. 11.09.2025 Sumit Gusain Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable M-A-417-2024 (O&M) deemed offence tried as a criminal offence. Therefore 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 Celestium 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 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 Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court , the present application seeking leave to to the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda with a direction ection 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-book and the record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda forthwith. Pending miscellaneous applications, if (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JUDGE SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.12 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document