CRA-AS-167-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 357 CRA-AS-167-2024 Date of Decision: 10.09.2025 M/s Rise Consorum India Pvt. Ltd. ......Appellant Verus M/s B.M. Bhar & Co. and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Ankur Bali, Advocate for the appellant. *** ANOOP CHITKARA J. Criminal Complaint No. 648 of 2006 under Secon 138 read with Secon 142 of the Negoable Instruments Act and 420 IPC, tled as “M/s Rise Consorum India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s B.M. Bhar & Company” decided on 29.09.2012 1. Feeling aggrieved by the trial court's judgment, dismissing the complaint on merits, and acqui:ng the accused/respondent, the complainant had come up before this Court by filing the above-menoned appeal. 2. Vide order dated 09.07.2024, the appeal was admi<ed. 3. Counsel for the appellant prays for transfer of appeal to the first Appellate Court in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in “Celesum Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, decided on 08.04.2025”. 4. In Celesum Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, decided on 08.04.2025, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, [7.8] In the case of an offence alleged against an accused under Secon 138 of the Act, we are of the view that the complainant is indeed the vicm owing to the alleged dishonour of a cheque. In the circumstances, the complainant can proceed as per the proviso to Secon 372 of the CrPC and he may exercise such an opon and he need not then elect to proceed under Secon 378 of the CrPC. [8]. The right to prefer an appeal is no doubt a statutory right and the right to prefer an appeal by an accused against a convicon is not merely a statutory right but can also be construed to be a fundamental right under Arcles 14 and 21 of the Constuon. If that is so, then the right of a vicm of an offence to prefer an appeal cannot be equated with the right of the State or the complainant to 1 JYOTI 2025.09.16 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-AS-167-2024 prefer an appeal. Hence, the statutory rigours for filing of an appeal by the State or by a complainant against an order of acqui<al cannot be read into the proviso to Secon 372 of the CrPC so as to restrict the right of a vicm to file an appeal on the grounds menoned therein, when none exists. [10]. As already noted, the proviso to Secon 372 of the CrPC was inserted in the statute book only with effect from 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such inseron must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the vicm of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Secon 372 of the CrPC, irrespecve of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the vicm of an offence is a complainant, he can sll proceed under the proviso to Secon 372 and need not advert to sub-secon (4) of Secon 378 of the CrPC. 5. In BNSS, 2023, S. 413 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, and thus the rao of Celesum Financial shall apply. 6. However, the complainant should not face the burden of filing an appeal again before the Sessions Court because the law has been interpreted recently. Therefore, in the interest of Equity, Jusce, and Fair play, it would be appropriate to refer this ma<er to the Sessions Court, where it will be registered as an Appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023, as applicable. If there is any objecon regarding whether it is an appeal under the CrPC or BNSS, it shall be registered under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, because the CrPC, 1973, has been repealed. 7. Given above, the Registry is to send this file along with the Lower Court’s Record, if any, to the concerned Sessions Division. 8. If the accused has furnished the bail bonds, there shall be no need to refurnish the same, and the bonds furnished pursuant to the order of this Court shall be deemed to be furnished before the Sessions Court and shall also be executable by the concerned appellate Court. Appeal is disposed of in the terms menoned above. All pending applicaon(s), if any, stand closed. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 10.09.2025/Jyo-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No. 2 JYOTI 2025.09.16 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.