Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 51498 (PNJ)

M/S DALIP SINGH DHILLON v. GURTEJ SINGH

CRM-A/1397/2025 · 2025-09-08

Vinod S Bhardwaj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 229 M/s Dalip Singh Dhillon and Sonst Petro Point Gurtej Singh CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present :- Mr. Simranjeet Sidhu VINOD S. BHARDWAJ CRM-29957-2025 Prayer made in the delay of 96 days in filing the application for leave to appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, th allowed and delay of 9 condoned. Main case The present application has been preferred under Section of the Code of Criminal Procedure of leave to appeal by the learned Judicial Magistrate complaint dated Instruments Act, 1881 2. The complaint (supra) was filed on th cheque of Rs.2,09,4 record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent(s) vide judgment IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-1397 Date of decision: M/s Dalip Singh Dhillon and Sonst Petro Point VERSUS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ . Simranjeet Sidhu, Advocate for the applicant ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) 2025 Prayer made in the present application i days in filing the application for leave to appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, th allowed and delay of 96 days in filing the application for leave to appea The present application has been preferred under Section Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘ of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated ed Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bathinda dated 09.03.2021 filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 The complaint (supra) was filed on th 2,09,400/-. After assessing all the material available on the record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent(s) vide judgment IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1397-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.09.2025 ...Applicant ...Respondent VINOD S. BHARDWAJ for the applicant. application is for condonation of days in filing the application for leave to appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is days in filing the application for leave to appeal is The present application has been preferred under Section 378(4) (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C.) seeking grant the judgment of acquittal dated 24.02.2025 passed Bathinda stemming out from filed under Section 138 of Negotiable read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 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 SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.09 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 229 CRM dated 24.02.2025. 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 Session Nagarathna, the following was held: “7.12 see and can be elaborated as follows: Firstly prefer an appeal which 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 offen 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 under Section 374 of the 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 righ CRM-A-1397--2025 (O&M) 24.02.2025. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. nasekaran 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 offen 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 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. 2 M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. nasekaran 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 s. 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 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. , 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 t to prefer an appeal. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.09 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 229 CRM Thirdly insert the proviso to sub condition precedent to be fulfilled by the victim of an offence, which expression also includes the lega 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 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 Cou 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 victim’s right to prefer 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 groun therein as compared to a complainant. Fifthly under Section 138 of the Act is conspicuous by its absence. This CRM-A-1397--2025 (O&M) 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 lega 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. Fourthly, the Parliament has not amended Section 378 to circumscribe the victim’s right to prefer 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 groun 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 3 , 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, 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, though of course 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 rt 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 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. , the involvement of the State in respect of an offence under Section 138 of the Act is conspicuous by its absence. This SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.09 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 229 CRM is because the complaint filed under that provision is in the nature of a pri 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 t 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 Court in Celestium Finan appeal is remanded 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 dispo 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 disposed of. 08.09.2025 Sumit Gusain Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable CRM-A-1397--2025 (O&M) 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 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 application seeking leave to remanded to the learned Sessions Judge 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 dispo 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 is because the complaint filed under that provision is in the vate 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 he 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, Bathinda 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-book and the record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda forthwith. Disposed of accordingly. Pending miscellaneous applications, if (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JUDGE SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.09 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document