CRM-A-1427-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 237-1 CRM-31159-2025 in/and CRM-A-1427-2025 Date of Decision : 08.09.2025 SATISH @ SATISH KUMAR ...Applicant/Appellant VERSUS SURESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present: Mr. Raman Chawla, Advocate for the applicant/appellant. **** AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (ORAL) CRM-31159-2025 Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 528 BNSS for condonation of delay of 34 days in filing the appeal has been filed. For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed and delay of 34 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CRM-A-1427-2025 1. The applicant has filed the present application seeking grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 19.04.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hansi, Hisar, in a case stemming from complaint dated 01.07.2020 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter ‘NI Act’) 2. The limited question arising for consideration in the present proceedings is whether an appeal against an order of acquittal passed in a complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act can be entertained under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. at the instance of the complainant? NISHA 2025.09.09 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-1427-2025 -2- 3. The issue is no longer res integra. In ‘M/s Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. 2025 INSC 804: 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208’, the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that a complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act, qualifies as a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C., being the person who suffers financial loss due to the dishonour of a cheque. Consequently, such a complainant is entitled to pursue an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., without the requirement of seeking special leave under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. 4. Adopting a pragmatic and justice oriented approach and guided by the principle that procedural rule must serve and not obstruct the course of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct that the present appeal be treated as one authoritatively instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. 5. Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Celestium Financial (supra), the present application seeking leave to appeal is remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge concerned, with a direction to treat the same as appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge may retain the said appeal on his/her Board or assign it to some other Court of competent jurisdiction. 6. The Registry is directed to transmit this order along with copy of the complete paper-book and return the trial Court record, if received, to the learned Sessions Judge, concerned. 7. Disposed of accordingly. 8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE 08.09.2025 Nisha Yadav Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NISHA 2025.09.09 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document