IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 232-1 M/s Dharmaya Enterprises through its Managing Partner Shri M/s Hari Om Traders through its partner/proprietor CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present :- Mr. S. S. Chopra VINOD S. BHARDWAJ CRM-40686-2019 Prayer in the present application 20 days in filing the application for leave to appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same allowed and delay of 20 condoned. Main case The present of the Code of Criminal grant of leave to appeal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class stemming from 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. The complaint (supra cheque amounting IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-2886 Date of decision: M/s Dharmaya Enterprises through its Managing Partner Shri VERSUS M/s Hari Om Traders through its partner/proprietor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ . S. S. Chopra, Advocate, for the ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) 2019 ayer in the present application is for condonation of delay of days in filing the application for leave to appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same allowed and delay of 20 days in filing application 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 CIS No.COMA/3761 dated 11.04.2017 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complaint (supra) was filed on th cheque amounting Rs.1,00,000/-. After assessing all the material available IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2886-2019(O&M) Date of decision: 11.09.2025 M/s Dharmaya Enterprises through its Managing Partner Shri Abhinav Jain ...Applicant M/s Hari Om Traders through its partner/proprietor and another ...Respondents VINOD S. BHARDWAJ , Advocate, for the applicant. s for condonation of delay of days in filing the application for leave to appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is days in filing application for leave to appeal is has been preferred under Section 378(4) Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking judgment of acquittal dated 11.02.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana in a case CIS No.COMA/3761 dated 11.04.2017 filed under Section ) was filed on the ground of dishonour of After assessing all the material available SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.12 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 232-1 CRM 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 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 who 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 appeal u 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, unconditi M-A-2886-2019 (O&M) on the record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent(s) vide judgment dated 11.02.2019. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Celest 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 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, 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 appeal u 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, unconditi 2 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 Cr.P.C., concluded that the victim has a right to file an appeal under Section 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 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 SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.12 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 232-1 CRM 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 expression 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, 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 a 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 v 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 therein as compared to a complainant. Fifthly M-A-2886-2019 (O&M) 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 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, 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 a 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 3 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, 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, 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 ictim’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 appeal on the grounds mentioned therein as compared to a complainant. , the involvement of the State in respect of an offence SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.12 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 232-1 CRM under Section 138 of the Act is conspicuous by its absence. This is because the complaint filed under that provision is 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, th 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 C in Celestium Financial (supra) appeal is remanded direction to treat the same as an appeal Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to appropr 5. The Registry is directed to send the complete paper the record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge 6. Disposed of accordingly. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand di 11.09.2025 Sumit Gusain Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable M-A-2886-2019 (O&M) under Section 138 of the Act is conspicuous by its absence. This is because the complaint filed under that provision is 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, th 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 C Celestium Financial (supra), the present application remanded to the learned Sessions Judge direction 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 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 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, Ludhiana with a filed under Section 372 of the iate 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, Ludhiana forthwith. Disposed of accordingly. Pending miscellaneous applications, if (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JUDGE SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.12 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document