IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 230 Sonu Kumar Bhajan Singh CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present :- Ms. Harkirat Kaur for the applicant. VINOD S. BHARDWAJ The present application has been of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CR.P.C.’) seeking grant of leave to appeal passed by the learned Jagadhri stemming out from under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 2. It is noticed that the instant application pertains to the year 2019, however, no one has entered appearan hence, it is deemed expedient Harkirat Kaur, Advocate, who is present in the Court, is appointed as the Legal Aid Counsel to represent the case on behalf of decision. She has gone thr application has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated passed by the Judicial in Criminal Complaint IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-1413 Date of decision: VERSUS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ . Harkirat Kaur as Legal Aid Counsel, for the applicant. ***** 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 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class stemming out from complaint dated 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 It is noticed that the instant application pertains to the year however, no one has entered appearance on behalf of the hence, it is deemed expedient to nominate a Legal Aid Counsel. , Advocate, who is present in the Court, is appointed as the Legal Aid Counsel to represent the case on behalf of e has gone through the case file and submits that the present application has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Complaint No.35 of 2016 filed IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1413-2019 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.09.2025 ...Applicant ...Respondent VINOD S. BHARDWAJ as Legal Aid Counsel, preferred under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CR.P.C.’) seeking judgment of acquittal dated 25.02.2019 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yamuna Nagar at complaint dated 05.01.2016/15.02.2018 filed 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It is noticed that the instant application pertains to the year ce on behalf of the applicant, to nominate a Legal Aid Counsel. Ms. , Advocate, who is present in the Court, is appointed as the Legal Aid Counsel to represent the case on behalf of applicant to arrive at a ough the case file and submits that the present application has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 25.02.2019 Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, filed under Section 138 of the SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.16 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 230 CRM Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208 applicant would have a reme 3. The complaint (supra) was filed on th cheque of Rs.3,50,000/ record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent(s) vide judgment dated 25.02.201 4. 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 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 a person who is charged of the offence, namely, the accused, whose cheque has been dishonoured. Secondly CRM-A-1413-2019 (O&M) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. She fairly submits that in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208 applicant would have a remedy before the Court of Sessions. The complaint (supra) was filed on th 3,50,000/-. After assessing all the material available on the record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent(s) vide judgment 25.02.2019. 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 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 a person who is charged of the offence, namely, the accused, whose cheque has been dishonoured. Secondly, the right of a victim of a crime must be placed on par 2 fairly submits that in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208, the before the Court of Sessions. 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 judgment 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 372 of Cr.P.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: f 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 has been dishonoured. , the right of a victim of a crime must be placed on par SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.16 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 230 CRM with the right of an accused who has suffered a conviction, who, as 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, whate must have a right to prefer an appeal. Thirdly insert the proviso to sub condition precedent to be fulfilled by 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, 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, th 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 the victim’s right to prefer an appeal just as it has CRM-A-1413-2019 (O&M) 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 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, through the Public Prosecutor can prefer an appeal even if the omplainant 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 circumscribe the victim’s right to prefer an appeal just as it has 3 with the right of an accused who has suffered a conviction, 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 ver 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, 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, through the Public Prosecutor can prefer an appeal even if the omplainant 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 e 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 circumscribe the victim’s right to prefer an appeal just as it has SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.16 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 230 CRM 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 ri an offence to prefer an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein as compared to a complainant. Fifthly under Section 138 of the Act is conspicuous by its absence. This is because t 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 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.” 5. Therefore, in in Celestium Financial (supra) appeal is remanded Jagadhri with a direction to treat the same as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to appropriate Court for its disposal on merits. 6. The Registry is directed to send the complete paper the record of the case to the learned CRM-A-1413-2019 (O&M) 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 ri 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 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 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 seeking leave to remanded to the learned Sessions Judge, with a direction to treat the same as an appeal 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 the record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge, 4 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 he 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 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 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 appeal 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 Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.16 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 230 CRM Jagadhri forthwith. 7. Disposed of accordingly. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 8. A copy of this order be sent to the High Court Legal Service Committee for information and necessary action. 15.09.2025 Sumit Gusain Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable CRM-A-1413-2019 (O&M) forthwith. Disposed of accordingly. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the High Court Legal Service Committee for information and necessary action. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 5 Disposed of accordingly. Pending miscellaneous applications, if A copy of this order be sent to the High Court Legal Service Committee for information and necessary action. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JUDGE SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.16 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document