Celestial Tech Vates Limited Vs United Teleservices Ltd.

The present leave to appeals are filed by the petitioner under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘ CrPC ’) against the judgments dated 12.11.2020, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (‘ MM ’) (N.I. Act), New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, whereby the respondents were acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘ NI Act ’) in CC No. 25937/2016 and CC No. 25580/2016 respectively.

¶14

At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

¶15

case of Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran : 2025 SCC

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

CRL.L.P. 278/2022 & CRL.L.P. 279/2022

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 11:52:24

¶20

OnLine SC 1320 , the petitioner being a victim is entitled to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal and is not required to seek leave to appeal. He submits that the present petitions be transferred to the learned Court of Sessions to be treated as appeals.

¶21

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the recent decision in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran ( supra ) has opined that a complainant who prefers a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act is an aggrieved party who suffers economic loss due to the dishonour of cheque, and such a complainant qualifies as a victim within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the CrPC. Consequently, it was held that such a complainant is entitled to the benefit of the proviso of Section 372 of the CrPC, enabling them to maintain an appeal against an order of acquittal without seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the CrPC.

¶22

The petitioner was the complainant in the complaints preferred under Section 138 of the NI Act, and is thus entitled to maintain appeals under Section 372 of the CrPC. 5. In terms of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, an appeal by a victim against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned MM will have to be heard by the learned Court of Sessions. If the petitions are allowed to continue before this Court, the parties will stand to lose a forum of challenge.

¶23

In view of the above, the present matters are disposed of with direction that the present petitions be treated as appeals under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC and numbered accordingly.

¶24

The Registry is directed to transfer entire record of the cases to the concerned Appellate Court of Sessions.

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

CRL.L.P. 278/2022 & CRL.L.P. 279/2022

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 11:52:24

¶29

The order be communicated to the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge for compliance and listing before the concerned Appellate Court on 25.09.2025.

¶30

The parties are directed to appear before the concerned Appellate Court on 25.09.2025.

¶31

Considering that the matters have been pending before this Court since the year 2022, the learned Sessions Court is requested to dispose of the matters expeditiously.

¶32

A copy of this order be placed in both the matters.

¶33

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶34

AUGUST 19, 2025 “SS”

¶35

Page 3 of 3

¶36

CRL.L.P. 278/2022 & CRL.L.P. 279/2022 This is a digitally signed order.

¶37

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 11:52:24

Celestial Tech Vates Limited v. United Teleservices Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Celestial Tech Vates Limited v. United Teleservices Ltd.

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

M/S Lg Polymers India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sanjiv Kapoor & Anr.

Xy Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Rohit Vs the State NCT of Delhi

Mohd Arshad Ahmad Vs the State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Dalip Kumar Vs State & Anr.

Sh Biman Mukherjee Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.