Damyanti Devi vs Ram Dass Cr. Appeal No. 187 of 2015 Reserved on 03.11.2025 03.12.2025 Present: Mr Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr Trigun Negi, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr Maan Singh, advocate, for the respondent. It appears from the record that the appellant/complainant had also preferred an appeal under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, H.P. However, the learned Sessions Judge held that the appeal is not maintainable before the Court as it was required to be filed before this Court under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. This conclusion is incorrect. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320, that the complainant has a right to prefer an appeal against the acquittal recorded in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) before the learned Sessions Judge under the proviso to Section 372 of CrPC. It was observed:- 9. In the circumstances, we find that Section 138 of the Act being in the nature of a penal provision by a deeming fiction against an accused who is said to have committed an offence under the said provision, if acquitted, can be proceeded against by a victim of the said offence, namely, the person who is entitled to the proceeds of a cheque which has been dishonoured, in terms of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, as a victim. As already noted, a victim of an offence could also be a complainant. In such a case, an appeal can be preferred either under the proviso to Section 372 or under Section 378 by such a victim. In the 2 absence of the proviso to Section 372, a victim of an offence could not have filed an appeal as such, unless he was also a complainant, in which event he could maintain an appeal if special leave to appeal had been granted by the High Court and if no such special leave was granted, then his appeal would not be maintainable at all. On the other hand, if the victim of an offence, who may or may not be the complainant, proceeds under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, then, in our view, such a victim need not seek special leave to appeal from the High Court. In other words, the victim of an offence would have the right to prefer an appeal, inter alia, against an order of acquittal in terms of the proviso to Section 372 without seeking any special leave to appeal from the High Court only on the grounds mentioned therein. A person who is a complainant under Section 200 of the CrPC who complains about the offence committed by a person who is charged as an accused under Section 138 of the Act, thus has the right to prefer an appeal as a victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC. 10. As already noted, the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC was inserted in the statute book only with effect from 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such insertion must be realised and must be given its full effect by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the victim of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the victim of an offence is a complainant, he can still proceed under the proviso to Section 372 and need not advert to sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the CrPC. 2. Therefore, the judgment dated 13.11.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, H.P. in Damyanti Devi vs Ram Dass in Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014 is ordered to be set aside. The appeal is held to be maintainable before the learned 3 Sessions Judge, and he is directed to proceed with the matter as per law. The parties through their respective counsel are directed to appear before the Court of learned Sessions Judge on 23rd December, 2025. The record be remitted to the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, H.P. to enable him to proceed further with the matter as per the law. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 03rd December, 2025 (Ravinder)