Allowed

R.S. Precision Components v. Delight Industries Thr. Its Proprietor

Delhi HC21 Aug 2025CRL.L.P./494/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC held that a cheque complainant is a 'victim' under CrPC and can appeal directly without leave to appeal. The petition was allowed, directions given to treat it as an appeal, and record transferred to Sessions Court.

What did the court decide?

Petition treated as appeal under Section 372 CrPC; record transferred to Sessions Court for disposal on 08.10.2025.

R.S. Precision Components Vs Delight Industries Thr. Its… — Cheque Dishonour | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~29

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.L.P. 494/2022

¶4

R.S. PRECISION COMPONENTS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rishabh Kumar, Adv. through V.C.

¶5

versus

¶6

DELIGHT INDUSTRIES THR. ITS PROPRIETOR

.....Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R

¶11

% 21.08.2025

¶12

The present leave to appeal is filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘ CrPC ’) against the judgment dated 02.05.2022, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (‘ MM ’), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby the respondent was acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘ NI Act ’) in CC No. 1734/2016.

¶13

At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran : 2025 SCC 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 petition be transferred to the learned Court of Sessions to be treated as an appeal.

¶14

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the recent decision in

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

CRL.L.P. 494/2022

¶17

This is a digitally signed order. 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 09/09/2025 at 12:07:15

¶18

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.

¶19

The petitioner was the complainant in the complaint preferred under Section 138 of the NI Act, and is thus entitled to maintain an appeal 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 petition is allowed to continue before this Court, the parties will stand to lose a forum of challenge.

¶20

In view of the above, the present matter is disposed of with direction that the present petition be treated as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC and numbered accordingly.

¶21

The Registry is directed to transfer entire record of the case to the concerned appellate Court of Sessions. 8. The order be communicated to the concerned Principal District & Sessions Judge for compliance and listing before the concerned Appellate Court on 08.10.2025. 9. The petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned Appellate Court on 08.10.2025.

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

CRL.L.P. 494/2022

¶24

¶25

Although notice was issued to the respondent, none has appeared for the respondent on any date. The learned Appellate Court is directed to issue fresh notice to the respondent before proceeding further in the matter.

¶26

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

¶27

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶28

AUGUST 21, 2025 “SK”

¶29

Page 3 of 3

¶30

CRL.L.P. 494/2022

¶31

R.S. Precision Components v. Delight Industries Thr. Its Proprietor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.S. Precision Components v. Delight Industries Thr. Its Proprietor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Iramya Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Rohit Chaudhary

Trustline Securities Ltd. Formerly Known as K and a Vs Premlata Gupta & Anr.

Aman Bidhuri Vs the State NCT of Delhi

Nawed Ali @ Salman Ali & Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Nikhil & Ors. Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Praleen Chopra Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.