IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 236 A.V. Precision Tubes Private Limited through its M.G. Enterprises through its proprietor CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present :- Mr. VINOD S. BHARDWAJ The present the Code of Criminal judgment of acquittal dated Magistrate 1st Class 12.10.2016 filed under Section and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The complaint (supra) was filed o four cheques amounting Rs.1,50,000/-. After assessing all the material available on the record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent(s) vide judgment dated 02.08.2022. 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 a IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-AS- Date of decision: A.V. Precision Tubes Private Limited through its VERSUS M.G. Enterprises through its proprietor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ . Shadab Ahmad, Advocate, for the applicant. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) The present appeal has been preferred under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘Cr judgment of acquittal dated 02.08.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hisar in a case stemming from filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complaint (supra) was filed on th amounting Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.1,26,963/ After assessing all the material available on the record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent(s) vide judgment dated The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. 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 a IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -499-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.09.2025 A.V. Precision Tubes Private Limited through its Director Shri Amit Garg ...Applicant ...Respondent VINOD S. BHARDWAJ for the applicant. been preferred under Section 378(4) of Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C.’) against the passed by the learned Judicial in a case stemming from complaint dated egotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. n the ground of dishonour of , Rs.1,26,963/-, Rs.1,50,000/- and After assessing all the material available on the record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent(s) vide judgment dated M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran 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 SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.12 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 236 CRA-AS-499 372 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions. Speaking through Justice B.V. Nagarathna, the following was held: “7.12 see and can be elaborated as follows: Firstly 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 a person who is charged of the offence, namely, whose cheque has been dishonoured. Secondly with the right of an accused who has suffered a conviction, who, as a 374 of the Cr 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 must have a right to prefer an appeal. Thirdly insert the proviso to sub condition precedent to be fulfilled by the 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, 499-2023(O&M) 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 a person who is charged of the offence, namely, 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. 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 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, 2 372 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions. Speaking through Justice B.V. The reasons for the above distinction are not far to see and can be elaborated as follows: 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 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, 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 be the nature of the crime, unconditionally must have a right to prefer an appeal. , 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, SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.12 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 236 CRA-AS-499 through the Public Prosecutor can prefer an appeal even if the compl 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 in 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 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 an offence to prefer an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein as compared to a complainant. Fifthly under Section 138 of the Act is conspicuous by its absence. This is because the c 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 trie complainant, who is the victim of a dishonour of cheque must be construed to be victim in terms of the proviso to Section 372 499-2023(O&M) 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 ame 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 an offence to prefer an appeal on the grounds mentioned 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 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 3 through the Public Prosecutor can prefer an appeal even if the ainant 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 sistence 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. , 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 omplaint filed under that provision is in the nature of a private 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 d 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 SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.12 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 236 CRA-AS-499 read with the definition of victim under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C.” 4. Therefore, in view in Celestium Financial (supra) learned Sessions Judge filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to a Court for its disposal on merits. 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. 11.09.2025 Sumit Gusain Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 499-2023(O&M) 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 learned Sessions Judge, Hisar with a direction to treat the same as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to a Court for its disposal on merits. 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 disposed of. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 4 read with the definition of victim under Section 2(wa) of the of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court , the present appeal is remanded to the with a direction to treat the same as an appeals filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to appropriate The Registry is directed to send the complete paper-book and the record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Hisar forthwith. Disposed of accordingly. Pending miscellaneous applications, if (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JUDGE SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.09.12 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document