IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 224 Biru Narpat Singh CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present :- Mr. Ms. Apoorva Arya, Advocate, for the respondent. VINOD S. BHARDWAJ The present the Code of Criminal judgment of acquittal dated Magistrate First Class, 03.10.2017 filed under Sections 138, 141 and 142 Act, 1881. 2. The complaint (supra) was filed on th cheque of Rs.1,70 record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent(s) vide judgment dated 27.09.2022 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 f IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-AS- Date of decision: VERSUS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ r. Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate for the applicant Ms. Apoorva Arya, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) The present appeal has been preferred under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘Cr judgment of acquittal dated 27.09.2022 passed by the learned Judicial First Class, Gurugram stemming out from filed under Sections 138, 141 and 142 The complaint (supra) was filed on th 1,70,000/-. After assessing all the material available on the record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent(s) vide judgment 27.09.2022. 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: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -256 -2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.09.2025 ...Applicant ...Respondent VINOD S. BHARDWAJ for the applicant. Ms. Apoorva Arya, Advocate, for the respondent. has been preferred under Section 378(4) of Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C.’) against the passed by the learned Judicial stemming out from complaint dated filed under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments 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. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.09 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 224 CRA “7.12 see and can be elaborated as follows: Firstly prefer an appeal which cannot be circumscribed by any condition precedent. In 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 dishono Secondly 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 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 insert the proviso to sub 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 CRA-AS-256-2023 (O&M) 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 under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. A person convicted of a crime has the right o 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 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 2 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 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, ured. , 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 o 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. 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 an appeal. On the contrary, as against an order of acquittal, the State, through the Public Prosecutor can prefer an appeal even if the SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.09 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 224 CRA complainant does not prefer such an appeal, though of course such an appeal is with the leave of the court. However, it 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 contra 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 with regard to a complainant 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. Fif 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 S 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 t CRA-AS-256-2023 (O&M) complainant does not prefer such an appeal, though of course such an appeal is with the leave of the court. However, it 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 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 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 3 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 ry 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 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 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. ection 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 o be victim in terms of the proviso to Section 372 SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.09 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 224 CRA 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 Court in Celestium Financial (supra) learned Sessions Judge appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to appropriate Court for its disposal on merits. 5. The Registry is directed to send the complete paper the record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge, 6. Disposed of accordingly to take all his pleas before the learned Trial Court applications, if any, also stand dispos 08.09.2025 Sumit Gusain Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable CRA-AS-256-2023 (O&M) 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 learned Sessions Judge, Gurugram 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. The Registry is directed to send the complete paper the record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Disposed of accordingly with a liberty granted to the applicant to take all his pleas before the learned Trial Court applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 4 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 appeal is remanded to the with a direction to treat the same as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to The Registry is directed to send the complete paper-book and the record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Gurugram forthwith. with a liberty granted to the applicant to take all his pleas before the learned Trial Court. Pending miscellaneous (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JUDGE SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.09 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document