Kamlesh Bansal v. Vijay Chaudhary
Case brief
What is this about?
The Delhi High Court, relying on the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial, held that a complainant under Section 138 NI Act is a 'victim'. Consequently, they can appeal against acquittal directly under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court without seeking special leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. The appeal was transferred to the Sessions Court.
What did the court decide?
Appeal transferred to the concerned Appellate Court of Sessions to be considered as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. (now Section 413 BNSS).
What the court decided
$~77
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- CRL.A. 1426/2014 KAMLESH BANSAL .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sumit Arora, Adv.
- versus
VIJAY CHAUDHARY .....Respondent Through: Appearance not given
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 15.09.2025
- The present appeal has been filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. by the appellant/complainant against the judgement dated 19.12.2012 passed by learned JMFC, NI Act, PHC in the case bearing CC No. 424/2012 titled as ‘KAMLESH BANSAL v. VIJAY CHAUDHARY,’ vide which the respondent was acquitted of the offense under Section 138 NI Act. The appellant had approached this Court vide CRL.L.P. No. 119/2013 seeking leave to appeal and the same was granted by this Court vide order dated 15.10.2014, following which the appeals were duly admitted.
- The appellant is the complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act who is aggrieved by the dishonour of the cheques statedly issued by the respondent. The trial which was initiated on the basis of his complaint has culminated in a finding of acquittal for respondent vide the impugned judgement. Naturally, the appellant is aggrieved by the said decision and wants to challenge the same.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act qualifies as a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C.
Whether a complainant under Section 138 NI Act can prefer an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. without seeking leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.
To which court an appeal by a 'victim' under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. against an acquittal under Section 138 NI Act should be filed.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Kamlesh Bansal
- respondent
Vijay Chaudhary
Coram
Manoj Kumar Ohri
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court