Roshankumar Ratanlal Gupta Vs Noormohammad Gulmohammaed Lohar — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2025)

Roshankumar Ratanlal Gupta Vs Noormohammad Gulmohammaed Lohar — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

All the present proceedings transferred to the concerned District and Sessions Courts; Learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to take further necessary action for the transfer immediately; the Courts to whom the matters are assigned to register them, issue notice to the concerned parties, proceed further in accordance with law, and treat the matters as appeals under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issue for consideration

Whether the complainant/victim of a Section 138 NI Act offence can prefer an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC, and how these pending leave applications should accordingly be dealt with.

Court's answer

In view of the position of law laid down by the Supreme Court and considering its observations in Celestium Financial (supra), these matters are required to be transferred for their disposal to the respective concerned District Courts.

Ratio / Principle

The Courts to whom these matters are assigned shall, after registering them and issuing notice to the concerned parties, treat these matters as appeals under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as per the observations of the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial (supra).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

BATCH DISPOSAL - S.138 NI Act acquittals - Appeal by complainant/victim - Nineteen Applications for Leave to Appeal by Private Party (Nos. 940-958, years 2018/2020/2024) and Criminal Appeal No. 645 of 2006, all arising from judgments and orders of acquittal passed by respective learned Judicial Magistrates, First Class, in prosecutions under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, were filed under S.378(4) CrPC. Noting the Supreme Court's ruling in Celestium Financial v. Ganasekaran, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1320, that a victim of a S.138 offence, whether or not the complainant, may prefer an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to S.372 CrPC without seeking special leave under S.378(4), Sushil M. Ghodeswar, J. (17 October 2025) ordered all the matters transferred to the concerned District and Sessions Courts; the Learned Registrar (Judicial) to act immediately; and the transferee Courts, after registration and notice to the parties, to proceed in accordance with law and treat the matters as appeals under the proviso to S.372 CrPC.

21.18alp etc

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

940 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 21 OF 2018

ROSHANKUMAR RATANLAL GUPTA VERSUS

NOORMOHAMMAD GULMOHAMMAED LOHAR

AND

941 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 68 OF 2018

AMBAJOGAI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD. WAGHALA THROUGH LALASAHEB VISHVNATH INGALE

VERSUS

SHAIKH MUNAWAR SHAIKH DAGDU

Mr P. V. Shinde, Advocate h/f Mr S. G. Kawade, Advocate for Applicant

Mr Y. K. Bobade, Advocate for Respondent

AND

942 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 74 OF 2018

PRAKASHCHAND S/O. AMOLAKCHAND BARDIYA

VERSUS

SUNIL S/O. GAJANAN JOSHI

Mr Padip S. Jadhav, Advocate h/f Mr V. P. Latange, Advocate for Applicant

Mr R. N. Chavan, Advocate for Respondent/State

AND

(2)

21.18alp etc

943 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 120 OF 2018

M/S. JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD. THROUGH ITS EMPLOYEE AND AUTHORIZED PERSON KAILAS NAGOLAL AGRAWAL

VERSUS

PHEPALE KRUSHI SEVA KENDRA THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR AND ANR

Mr Ajinkya Reddy, Advocate for Applicant Mr R. U. Gavhane, Advocate h/f Mr P. C. Mayure, Advocate for Respondents

AND

944 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 124 OF 2018

AJIT S/O. BHAUSAHEB BENDRE VERSUS

KISHOR S/O. VASANT TARATE AND ANR

Ms P. S. Mogre, Advocate h/f Mr S. G. Mogre, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Mr N. R. Dayama, APP for Respondent No.2/State

AND 945 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 150 OF 2018

SANTOSH S/O. DNYANDEO GAIKWAD VERSUS

GANESH S/O. RAJARAM BHISE

Mr D. R. Markad, Advocate for Applicant

AND

21.18alp etc

(3)

946 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 160 OF 2018

SANDIP S/O. JUGALKISHOR KARWA

VERSUS

AMIT S/O. RAMESH BHANDARI

Mr Vedant Kabra, Advocate h/f Mr R. F. Totala, Advocate for applicant Mr M. S. Karad, Advocate for Respondent

AND 947 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 196 OF 2018

SUNIL S/O. GULABRAO DEVKAR VERSUS

SHAIKH JAHUR S/O. SHAIKH NABI

Mr A. A. Mukhedkar, Advocate for Applicant

Mr Joslyn A. Menezes, Advocate h/f Mr P. S. Paranjape, Advocate for Respondent

AND

948 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 201 OF 2018

SHOBHA JAGANNATH GHUBADE

VERSUS

VIJAYMALA BARASU SARKATE

Ms Neha B. Kamble, Advocate for applicant Mr S. N. Dudhate, Advocate h/f Mr J. V. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent

AND 949 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 35 OF 2020

MAHINDRA S/O. HIRAMAN PIMPALE

VERSUS

YAYATI S/O. PRABHAKAR MUNDE

Mr S. R. Bagal, Advocate h/f Mr B. N. Gadegaonkar, Advocate for Respondent

21.18alp etc

(4)

AND

950 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 37 OF 2020

MAHINDRA S/O. HIRAMAN PIMPALE VERSUS

YAYATI S/O. PRABHAKAR MUNDE

Mr S. R. Bagal, Advocate h/f Mr B. N. Gadegaonkar, Advocate for Respondent

AND

951 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 12 OF 2024

THE AKOLA URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. BRANCH NANDED, THROUGH DHAWAL JAYANT DOIPHODE

VERSUS

PRABHAKAR GOVINDRAO SURYAWANSHI

Mr A. D. Dale, Advocate h/f Mr S. S. Rathi, Advocate for Applicant

AND

952 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 14 OF 2024

RAJSARSHI SHAHU MAHARAJ URBAN MULTISTATE COCREDIT SOCIETY LTD., THROUGH PRALHAD GUNAJI DHAGE

VERSUS

BALIRAM SOPANRAO PANDULE

Mr A. B. Lokhande, Advocate for Applicant Mr H. U. Dhage, Advocate for Respondent

AND

953 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 19 OF 2024

SAYED ANWAR SHAFIUDDIN

VERSUS

SHAIKH IRFAN MUSTAFA AND ANOTHER

….. Mr S. B. Jadhav, APP for Respondent No.2/State

21.18alp etc

(5)

AND

954 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 21 OF 2024

PIRAJI BABURAO MANJULE VERSUS

SATISH MAHADEO KHARPADE AND ANOTHER

Mr S. H. Pathan, Advocate for Applicant Mr G. O. Wattamwar, APP for Respondent NO.2/State

AND

955 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 22 OF 2024

THE DHULE AND NANDURBAR DIST. CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD DHULE THROUGH RAJENDRA GANGARAM MAHALE VERSUS

RUPCHAND BHOJU PATIL

Mr Nitin P. Aute, Advocate h/f Mr D. B. Thoke, Advocate for Applicant

Mr S. V. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent

AND

956 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 33 OF 2024

IMRAN ALAM KHAN S/O. KHURSHID ALAM KHAN VERSUS

GANESH MAGAN SONWANE AND ANOTHER

Mr I. G. Durrani, Advocate for Applicant Mr N. R. Dayama, APP for Respondent No.2/State

AND

21.18alp etc

(6)

957 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 35 OF 2024

ASHOK SITARAM KUTE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Mr D. B. Bhange, APP for Respondent No.1/State

AND

958 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 40 OF 2024

BHARAT LIMBRAJ PADWAL

VERSUS

BALASAHEB SHIVAJI PADWAL AND ANOTHER

Ms V. M. Shelke, Advocate h/f Mr V. B. Deshmukh, Advocate for Applicant

Mr S. J. Salgare, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Mr S. B. Jadhav, APP for Respondent No.2/State

AND

959 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 645 OF 2006

KAILAS RAMDHAN ZALANI

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR

Mr R. R. Kakani, Advocate for Applicant Mr N. R. Dayama, APP for Respondent No.1/State

CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

DATE : 17 OCTOBER 2025

P. C. :

1. Since common issue is involved in these matters,

therefore, they are being decided by this common order.

21.18alp etc (7)

By these applications under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the respective applicants/appellants pray for leave to file an appeal against judgment and order of acquittal passed by respective learned Judicial Magistrates, First Class, in respective cases for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Insofar as the issue in respect of preferring an appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the complainant/victim is concerned, the same was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of Celestium Financial Vs. Ganasekaran Etc. [(2025) SCC OnLine SC 1320] , wherein, it has been held 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 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

21.18alp etc

(8)

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 the right to prefer an appeal as a victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC.

10. As already noted, the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC was inserted in the statute book only with effect from 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such insertion must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the victim of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the victim of an offence is a complainant, he can still proceed under the proviso to Section 372 and need not advert to sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the CrPC."

Considering the above position of law as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, learned advocates appearing in the matter for the applicants/appellants submitted that under proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the victim has a right to

prefer an appeal against the order passed by the Court acquitting the

(9)

21.18alp etc

accused or convicting accused for lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, such appeal shall lie to the Court to which the appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction. In view of said proviso, learned Advocates pray that these matters be transferred to the concerned District and Sessions Courts for their disposal in accordance with law.

In that view of the matter and considering the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court in Celestium Financial (supra) , these matters are required to be transferred for their disposal to the respective concerned District Courts. Hence, the following order :-

ORDER

(1) The present proceedings be transferred to the concerned District and Sessions Courts.

(2) Learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to take further necessary action for transferring these matters to the concerned District and Sessions Courts, immediately.

(3) Learned Courts to whom these matters would be assigned, after registering them, shall issue notice to the concerned parties,

21.18alp etc

(10)

and thereafter, proceed further with the matters in accordance with law.

(4) The concerned Courts shall treat these matters as appeals under proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as per the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court in Celestium Financial (supra).

[SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]

sjk