M/s T.R. & Company Vs. Anil Khan CrMP(M) No.439 of 2025 30.06.2025 Present: Mr. Sachin Sunail, Advocate vice Mr. Chandan Goel, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Prikshit Rathour, Advocate vice Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. Today, the case has been fixed for filing reply to the application. However, the same has not been filed. Further adjournment, for this purpose, is not justifiable. As such, right to file reply to the application, on behalf of the respondent, stands closed by the order of the Court. 2. Heard. 3. By way of the present application, the applicant, who is complainant, in this case, has sought the indulgence of this Court to grant leave to appeal. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Criminal Appeal Nos.1868-1870 of 2025, titled as Celestium Financial versus A. Gnanasekaran & Others, has held that 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. Relevant paragraph 9 of the said judgment is reproduced, as under:- “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 50 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 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 51 the right to prefer an appeal as a victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC.” 5. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the present application is allowed and requisite leave to appeal is accorded in favour of the applicant. 6. Application is disposed of accordingly. Cr. Appeal No._____ of 2025 7. Vide order of the even date, passed in CrMP(M) No.439 of 2025, leave to appeal has been accorded. Be registered. 8. Since, there are certain arguable points, involved in this case, as such, the present appeal is ordered to be admitted for hearing. 9. Call for the records. 10. Respondent-Anil Khan is directed to furnish requisite bail bonds, in the sum of Rs.30,000/-, with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, by giving solemn undertaking to surrender before this Court or before the learned trial Court, in case, the present Criminal Appeal, preferred by the appellant, is allowed. Needful be done, within a period of four weeks, from today. 11. Let, report, regarding compliance of this order, be called for, from the learned trial Court, within six weeks. June 30, 2025 ( Virender Singh ) (Gaurav Thakur) Judge