Disposed¶26

Kanchana Mukhopadhyay v. Ananda Mohan Roy

Calcutta HC4 Aug 2025CRR/1683/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Victim's appeal under Section 372 of the Code; whether leave required; Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1320; Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint case; discharge of accused at argument stage; stay of proceedings by Chief Judge, City Sessions Court in Criminal Revision No. 81 of 2025; remand to Sessions Court; next hearing 2.9.2025; CRR 1683 of 2025; High Court at Calcutta; Jay Sengupta, J.

What did the court decide?

Revisional application disposed of with observations and directions: matter remanded to the Sessions Court to decide the pending revision in accordance with law, taking into consideration Celestium Financial, on the next date of hearing (2.9.2025); urgent photostat certified copy to be given on compliance with requisite formalities. ¶26

Kanchana Mukhopadhyay Vs Ananda Mohan Roy — Cheque Dishonour | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether leave is required to be taken for filing an appeal under Section 372 of the Code by a victim in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

No leave is required to be taken for an appeal under Section 372 of the Code preferred by a victim in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act; the point is settled by the decision in Celestium Financial, which categorically held that no such leave was required.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Since the revisional application is still pending before the learned Sessions Court, the High Court remands the matter to the Sessions Court and directs it to decide the matter in accordance with law, taking into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Celestium Financial, on the next date of hearing i.e., 2.9.2025.

¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Calcutta High Court, CRR 1683 of 2025 (Jay Sengupta, J.; judgment dated 04.08.2025). Revision against order dated 02.04.2025 of the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, in Criminal Revision No. 81 of 2025, staying further proceedings in Complaint Case no. 6232 of 2011 (Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act) before the Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Calcutta. Petitioner's father had complained against the opposite party, who was acquitted; the petitioner's appeal under Section 372 of the Code led to the order being set aside and the matter remanded to the Magistrate; at the fag end of trial the opposite party was discharged on the ground that the Sessions Judge's order was illegal, and his ensuing revision before the Additional Chief Judge carried a stay of the trial proceedings. Holding: per Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1320, no leave is required for a victim's appeal under Section 372 of the Code in a Section 138 case; as the revision remains pending before the Sessions Court, the matter is remanded to that court to decide it in accordance with law in light of Celestium Financial on the next hearing date (2.9.2025). Application disposed of.

¶1

In The High Court at Calcutta Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction

¶2

Appellate Side

¶3

Coram:

¶4

The Hon’ble Justice Jay Sengupta

¶5

CRR 1683 of 2025

¶6

Kanchana Mukhopadhyay

¶7

Vs .

¶8

Ananda Mohan Roy

¶9

For the petitioner : Mr. Soumopriya Chowdhury

¶10

Mr. Koushik De Ms. Mohini Majumder

¶11

Mr. Raghav Munshi Ms. A. Ghosh

¶12

For the Opposite party : Mr. Rhidhiman Mukherjee

¶13

Mr. Subhomoy Dewanji

¶14

Heard on : 04.08.2025 Judgment on : 04.08.2025

¶15

Jay Sengupta, J.:- This is an application, inter alia , challenging an order

¶16

dated 02.04.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Criminal Revision No. 81 of 2025 thereby directing stay of all further proceedings in Complaint Case no. 6232 of 2011 pending before the

¶17

¶18

learned Judicial Magistrate, 5^th Court, Calcutta under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner’s father filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the opposite party. She did not know about this during his life time. By the time she came to know this, the opposite party had been acquitted. As an aggrieved party, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 372 of the Code before the learned Sessions Judge. The order was set aside and remanded back to the Magistrate. The petitioner was examined as PW 1 and other side tried to protract the trial. DW was closed. Upon challenge the same was allowed, but within a time frame. On the last date fixed for argument, the opposite party was discharged on the ground that the order of the Sessions Judge was illegal. This was challenged before the Additional Chief Judge in City Sessions Court in revision, but he kept the matter pending and stayed the impugned proceedings to find out whether such an appeal would lie under Section 372 before the Sessions Court. As the petitioner was a victim, it was open to her to prefer an appeal whether under Section 372 or Section 374 of the Code. The law on this field is governed by the latest decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial versus A. Gnanasekaran Etc, reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 1320 , where it was clearly held that the victim in such a case would prefer an appeal and leave was not required to be taken for such purpose. The proceeding is being unnecessarily protracted and the next date fixed for hearing is on 2.9.2025.

¶20

¶21

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party opposes the prayer and submits as follows. When a revision is pending before the Sessions Court, let the same be decided in accordance with law and if a final order is passed with which if either party is aggrieved, then it can be taken up before this Court in revision. The case of the opposite party is that leave is required to be taken in filing an appeal under Section 372 of the Code and the same was not done in the present case.

¶22

It appears that the earlier order of the Sessions Judge remanded back the matter to the Magistrate was not challenged by the opposite party at the initial stage. Only at the fag end of the proceeding before the Magistrate/Trial Court, he chose to take up this point that leave was not taken for filing an appeal under Section 372 of the Code.

¶23

However, the point whether a leave is required to be taken in case of an appeal under Section 372 of the Code to be preferred by a victim in a case of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is well-settled now in view of the decision in Celestium Financial (supra). It had categorically held that no such leave was required to be taken.

¶24

However, in view of the fact that the revisional application is still pending before the learned Sessions Court, this Court remands the matter back to the Sessions Court and directs the Sessions Court to decide the matter in accordance with law and by taking into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down in Celestium Financial (supra) on the next date of hearing i.e. ,on 2.9.2025.

¶25

¶26

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the revisional application stands disposed of.

¶27

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities.

¶28

(Jay Sengupta, J.)

Kanchana Mukhopadhyay v. Ananda Mohan Roy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanchana Mukhopadhyay v. Ananda Mohan Roy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yudhister Hakumal Bhagnani Vs State of West Bengal

Susabhan Singha Roy Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Shovan Maity Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Akshoy Biswas @ Akshay Biswas and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Kanchana Mukhopadhyay Vs Ananda Mohan Roy

Babanpreet Singh Vs State of West Bengal