246 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 1. RAHUL KAKKAR ASHOK GOENDI 2. RAHUL KAKKAR ASHOK GOENDI 3. REKHA RAHUL KAKKAR ASHOK GOENDI CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Ms. Nirmal Rani, Advocate for Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the respondent. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This order of mine shall dispose of all the aforementioned applications as similar issue is involved therein. are borrowed from IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RAHUL KAKKAR V/S ASHOK GOENDI RAHUL KAKKAR V/S ASHOK GOENDI REKHA RAHUL KAKKAR V/S ASHOK GOENDI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the applicants Ms. Nirmal Rani, Advocate for Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the respondent. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This order of mine shall dispose of all the aforementioned applications as similar issue is involved therein. are borrowed from CRM-A-1089-2019 titled as IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 03.07.2025 CRM-A-1089-2019 ...APPLICANT ...RESPONDENT CRM-A-760-2019 ...APPLICANT ...RESPONDENT CRM-A-776-2019 ...APPLICANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR applicants. Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the respondent. This order of mine shall dispose of all the aforementioned applications as similar issue is involved therein. For the sake of brevity, facts titled as Rahul Kakkar vs. Ashok MANISHA 2025.07.04 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-A-1089-2019 & 02 connected cases Goendi. 2. The present application of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CR.P.C.’) seeking grant of leave to appeal the judgment of acquittal dated learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad complaint dated Act, 1881. 3. The complaint cheques of the amount of available on the judgment dated 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208 discussion and comparative interpret 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: 2019 2 & 02 connected cases 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 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad complaint dated 16.12.2016 filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments The complaint (supra) was filed on the ground of dishonour of of the amount of Rs.50,60,000/-. After assessing all the material available on the record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent judgment dated 18.02.2019. 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 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 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 has been dishonoured. 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 18.02.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad in a case stemming from Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments was filed on the ground of dishonour of After assessing all the material record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent vide M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208, after considerable ation 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. 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 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 MANISHA 2025.07.04 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-A-1089-2019 & 02 connected cases 2019 3 & 02 connected cases Secondly, the right of a victim of a cri 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 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 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 pref 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 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 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 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. 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 t 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 on 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 . 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 (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 proviso to Section 372 so as to envisage a superior right m of an offence to prefer an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein as compared to a complainant. MANISHA 2025.07.04 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-A-1089-2019 & 02 connected cases 5. In view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial Kishor in CRM Sessions Judge, appeals filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to appropriate Court for its disposal. 6. The Registry is directed to send the complete paper record of the case parties are directed to appear before the Court concerned on 18.08.2025. 7. Disposed of, accordingly. 8. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected cases. July 03, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 2019 4 & 02 connected cases 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 file 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 372 read with the definition of victim under Section 2(wa) of 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, Faridabad is directed to treat the present leave to 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 record of the cases to the learned Sessions Judge, parties are directed to appear before the Court concerned on 18.08.2025. Disposed of, accordingly. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 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 intention incorporates the provisions of the CrPC in the al 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.” 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 to treat the present leave to appeals as filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to The Registry is directed to send the complete paper-books and the to the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad forthwith. The parties are directed to appear before the Court concerned on 18.08.2025. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected 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