IN THE 263 Jitender Singh Charanjit Singh Brar and another CORAM: Present : HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. 378(4) of the Code of Criminal seeking grant of leave to appeal the passed by the learned (Mohali), in a complaint filed under 454, 455, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 482 read with Section 120 2. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208 deliberation and comparative analysis of Sectio concluded that the victim has a right to file an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions. Reliance in this regard can also be placed on Satish Kumar Versus Jugal Kishor decided on overruling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: Singh VERSUS Charanjit Singh Brar and another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET Mr. Anil Ghangas, Advocate for the appellant Mr. J.P.S. Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present application has been preferred under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CR.P.C.’) seeking grant of leave to appeal the judgment passed by the learned Additional Chief in a complaint filed under Section 454, 455, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 482 read with Section 120 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208 deliberation and comparative analysis of Sectio concluded that the victim has a right to file an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions. Reliance in this regard can also be Satish Kumar Versus Jugal Kishor 02.07.2025. Further still, applying the doctrine of prospective overruling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-74-2019 Date of Decision: August 05, 2025 .....Appellant VERSUS .....Respondent HARPREET SINGH BRAR , Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J.P.S. Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.1. The present application has been preferred under Section Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CR.P.C.’) judgment of acquittal dated 01.10.2018 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate SAS Nagar Sections 380, 406, 419, 420, 452, 453, 454, 455, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 482 read with Section 120-B of IPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208, after considerable deliberation and comparative analysis 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. Reliance in this regard can also be Satish Kumar Versus Jugal Kishor in CRM-A-2700-MA-2018 02.07.2025. Further still, applying the doctrine of prospective overruling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Directorate of Revenue , 2025 Appellant .....Respondent The present application has been preferred under Section Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CR.P.C.’) 01.10.2018 SAS Nagar 453, M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. , after considerable ns 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. Reliance in this regard can also be 2018 02.07.2025. Further still, applying the doctrine of prospective Directorate of Revenue PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.06 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Intelligence Vs. Raj Kumar Arora in SCC Online 819 rule of thumb, judgments rendered shall be applicabl 3. in Celestium Financial appeal is remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge, with a direction to and entrust it to appropriate Court for its disposal on merits. 4. the record of the case forthwith. 5. 6. of. August 05, 2025 P.C 2 Intelligence Vs. Raj Kumar Arora in SCC Online 819 rule of thumb, judgments rendered shall be applicabl Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court Celestium Financial (supra), the present application seeking leave to appeal is remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge, with a direction to treat the same as filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C and entrust it to appropriate 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 any, also stand disposed , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : Intelligence Vs. Raj Kumar Arora in SCC Online 819 has clarified that as a rule of thumb, judgments rendered shall be applicable retrospectively. Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court (supra), the present application seeking leave to appeal is remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar Mohali treat the same as filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C and entrust it to appropriate Court for its disposal on merits. The Registry is directed to send the complete paper-book and to the learned Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar Mohali Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No has clarified that as a Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court (supra), the present application seeking leave to SAS Nagar Mohali treat the same as filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C book and SAS Nagar Mohali, Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.06 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document