p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLLP No.6 of 2025 Mohammed Ibar …. Petitioner(s) None -versus- Parthasarathi Mohanty …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Satya Ranjan Mulia, Adv. CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 04. ORDER 04.02.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In filing this CRLLP, the Petitioner in whose favour the cheques in question are claimed to have been drawn, has challenged the judgment dated 23.11.2024 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. (LR & LTV), Bhubaneswar in 1CC Case No.328 of 2023. 3. Though nobody appears on behalf of the Petitioner at the time of call, learned counsel for the Opposite Party, at the outset, drawing the attention of this Court to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.1 submits that instead of preferring the present CRLLP, the Petitioner should have preferred an appeal as per the provision under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. for redresssal of his grievance. Hence, the present CRLLP is not 1 2025 INSC 804 Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.137-139 /2025 Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 05-Feb-2026 17:51:17 Signature Not Verified p. 2 maintainable in the present context. The relevant portion of the said judgment of the Apex Court is extracted herein below: “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 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 p. 3 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 to 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. “ p. 4 4. Considering the above submission made on behalf of the Opposite Party and looking to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Celestium Financial (supra), this Court directs the Petitioner to prefer an appeal as per the provision under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. along with a petition for condonation of delay, if any, which shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. 5. The CRLLP is accordingly disposed of. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Sipun