249 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AJAY KUMAR SURENDER SINGH CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Tada, Advocate HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The present application has been preferred under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CR.P.C.’) BNSS, 2023 seeking grant of leave to appeal the judgment of acquittal dated 28.08.2024 passed by learned stemming from complaint dated Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘NI Act’). 2. The complaint cheques of the amount of available on the record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent judgment dated 3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Cri 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 AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AJAY KUMAR V/S SURENDER SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Sandeep Kumar Tada, Advocate **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, 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 the judgment of acquittal dated passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa stemming from complaint dated 31.07.2018 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘NI Act’). The complaint (supra) was filed on the ground of dishonour of of the amount of Rs.18,70,000/-. After assessing all the material available on the record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent judgment dated 28.08.2024. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. 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 AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-17117-2025 in/and CRM-A-748-2025 (O & M) Date of decision: 03.07.2025 ...APPLICANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Sandeep Kumar Tada, Advocate for the applicant. The present application has been preferred under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CR.P.C.’) (now 419(4) seeking grant of leave to appeal the judgment of acquittal dated agistrate Ist Class, Sirsa in a case 31.07.2018 filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘NI Act’). was filed on the ground of dishonour of After assessing all the material available on the record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent vide M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. minal) 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 MANISHA 2025.07.04 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-17117-2025 CRM-A-748-2025 372 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions. Speaking through Justice B.V. Nagarathna, the following was held: 2025 in/and 2025 (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, the accused, whose cheque 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 CrPC. 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 prefer an appeal. Thirdly, it is for this reason that the Parliament thought it fit to insert the proviso to sub mandating any condition precedent to be fulfilled by the victim of an offence, which expression also inclu 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 such an appeal is with the leave of the However, it is not always necessary for the State or a 2 372 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions. Speaking through Justice B.V. “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 ion 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 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 of the CrPC. 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 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 deceased victim who can prefer 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 MANISHA 2025.07.04 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-17117-2025 CRM-A-748-2025 4. In view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial Kishor in CRM Sessions Judge, appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to appropriate Court for its disposal. 2025 in/and 2025 (O & M) 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 Section 378(4) of the CrPC would be contrary to what has been intended by the Parliament by insertion of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC. 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 This is because the complaint filed under that provision is in the nature of a private complaint as per Section the CrPC and Section 143 of the Act by an express intention incorporates the provisions of the CrPC 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 of victim under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC.” In view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Celestium Financial (supra) and this Court in CRM-A-2700-MA-2018 decided on 02.07.2025 Sessions Judge, Sirsa is directed to treat the present leave to appeal as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to appropriate Court for its disposal. 3 complainant to prefer an appeal. 3 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 (4) of the CrPC would be contrary to what has been intended by the Parliament by insertion of the proviso 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 o 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 provision is in the nature of a private complaint as per Section 200 of the CrPC and Section 143 of the Act by an express n incorporates the provisions of the CrPC 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 CrPC.” In view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in Satish Kumar vs. Jugal decided on 02.07.2025, the learned is directed to treat the present leave to appeal as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to MANISHA 2025.07.04 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-17117-2025 CRM-A-748-2025 5. The Registry is directed to send record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge, 6. Disposed of, accordingly. 7. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. July 03, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 2025 in/and 2025 (O & M) The Registry is directed to send the complete paper record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Disposed of, accordingly. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed (HARPREET Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 4 the complete paper-book and the record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa forthwith. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.07.04 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment