Disposed¶31

Rahul Jain v. State & Anr.

Delhi HC29 Jul 2025CRL.L.P./678/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court order (Amit Mahajan, J., 29.07.2025) in CRL.L.P. 671-680/2018 (Rahul Jain v. State): complainant's Section 378 CrPC leave petitions against MM acquittals under Section 138 NI Act treated as victim appeals under proviso to Section 372 CrPC following Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320 (complainant is victim under Section 2(wa) CrPC; no leave under Section 378(4) needed); record transferred to Court of Sessions; appearance listed 08.09.2025; expeditious disposal requested.

What did the court decide?

Leave petitions treated as appeals under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC and numbered accordingly; record directed to be transferred to the concerned appellate Court of Sessions; parties to appear before the Appellate Court on 08.09.2025; Sessions Court requested to dispose of the matters expeditiously.

Rahul Jain Vs State & Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether a complainant under Section 138 NI Act, qualifying as a victim within the meaning of Section 2(wa) CrPC, is entitled to maintain an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without leave under Section 378(4) CrPC. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

Applying Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320), the Court held that the petitioner, having been the complainant in the complaints preferred under Section 138 NI Act, is entitled to maintain appeals under Section 372 CrPC.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

In terms of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, an appeal by a victim against a judgment of acquittal passed by the learned MM must be heard by the learned Court of Sessions; allowing the petitions to continue before the High Court would cost the parties a forum of challenge.

¶31

Key takeaways

The present matters were disposed of with direction that the petitions be treated as appeals under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC and numbered accordingly.ratio¶31
The Registry was directed to transfer the entire record of the cases to the concerned appellate Court of Sessions, with the parties to appear before the Appellate Court on 08.09.2025.ratio¶32
Considering the matters had been pending since 2018, the learned Sessions Court was requested to dispose of the matters expeditiously.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Amit Mahajan, J.), order dated 29.07.2025 in CRL.L.P. 671/2018 and connected matters (CRL.L.P. 672-680/2018): Ten leave petitions under Section 378 CrPC challenging the judgment dated 14.08.2018 of the learned MM, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, acquitting Respondent No. 2 of offences under Section 138 NI Act, were disposed of by treating them as appeals under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. Relying on Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320, the Court recorded that a complainant under Section 138 NI Act is a victim within the meaning of Section 2(wa) CrPC and may appeal against acquittal without leave under Section 378(4) CrPC; since such a victim's appeal lies to the Court of Sessions, continuation before the High Court would deprive the parties of a forum of challenge. The Registry was directed to transfer the entire record to the concerned appellate Court of Sessions, the parties to appear on 08.09.2025, and the Sessions Court was requested to dispose of the matters expeditiously.

¶1

$~16 to 25

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CRL.L.P. 671/2018 RAHUL JAIN .....Petitioner Through: None versus STATE & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State Mr. Naman Aggarwal, Mr. Yash Sharma & Mr. Aditya Dev Sharma, Advs. 17 + CRL.L.P. 672/2018 RAHUL JAIN .....Petitioner Through: None versus STATE & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State Mr. Naman Aggarwal, Mr. Yash Sharma & Mr. Aditya Dev Sharma, Advs. 18 + CRL.L.P. 673/2018 RAHUL JAIN .....Petitioner Through: None versus STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State Mr. Naman Aggarwal, Mr. Yash Sharma & Mr. Aditya Dev Sharma, Advs. 19 + CRL.L.P. 674/2018 RAHUL JAIN .....Petitioner Through: None versus STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR .....Respondents CRL.L.P. 671/2018 & connected matters Page 1 of 5

¶4

Page 1 of 5

¶5

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 04/08/2025 at 12:19:33

¶6

Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State Mr. Naman Aggarwal, Mr. Yash Sharma & Mr. Aditya Dev Sharma, Advs.

¶7

¶8

+ CRL.L.P. 675/2018

¶9

	RAHUL JAIN		.....Petitioner
		Through:	None
		versus
	STATE & ANR.		.....Respondents
		Through:	Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State
			Mr. Naman Aggarwal, Mr.
			Yash Sharma & Mr.
			Aditya Dev Sharma, Advs.
21
+	CRL.L.P. 676/20	18
	RAHUL JAIN		.....Petitioner
		Through:	None
		versus
	STATE ( GOVT	OF NCT OF
	DELHI) & ANR		.....Respondents
		Through:	Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam,
			APP for the State
			Mr. Naman Aggarwal, Mr.
			Yash Sharma & Mr.
			Aditya Dev Sharma, Advs.
22
+	CRL.L.P. 677/20	18
	RAHUL JAIN		.....Petitioner
		Through:	None
		versus
	STATE ( GOVT	OF NCT OF
	DELHI) & ANR		.....Respondents
		Through:	Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam,
			APP for the State
			Mr. Naman Aggarwal, Mr.
			Yash Sharma & Mr.
			Aditya Dev Sharma, Advs.
23
+	CRL.L.P. 678/20	18
	RAHUL JAIN		.....Petitioner

¶10

CRL.L.P. 671/2018 & connected matters

¶11

Page 2 of 5

¶12

¶13

Through: None versus STATE & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State Mr. Naman Aggarwal, Mr. Yash Sharma & Mr. Aditya Dev Sharma, Advs.

¶14

¶15

+ CRL.L.P. 679/2018

¶16

RAHUL JAIN		.....Petitioner
	Through:	None
	versus
STATE & ANR.		.....Respondents
	Through:	Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam,
		APP for the State
		Mr. Naman Aggarwal, Mr.
		Yash Sharma & Mr.
		Aditya Dev Sharma, Advs.

¶17

¶18

¶19

CRL.L.P. 680/2018

¶20

RAHUL JAIN		.....Petitioner
	Through:	None
	versus
STATE & ANR.		.....Respondent
	Through:	Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam,
		APP for the State
		Mr. Naman Aggarwal, Mr.
		Yash Sharma & Mr.
		Aditya Dev Sharma, Advs.

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶22

¶23

O R D E R 29.07.2025

¶24

The present leaves to appeal have been filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘ CrPC ’) against the judgment dated 14.08.2018, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (‘ MM’ ), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, whereby Respondent No. 2 was acquitted of

¶25

CRL.L.P. 671/2018 & connected matters

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

Page 3 of 5

¶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 04/08/2025 at 12:19:33

¶29

the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘ NI Act ’) in Ct Case Nos. 516357/2016, 533667/2016, 533668/2016, 533669/2016, 533673/2016, 533740/2016, 513405/2016, 513426/2016, 513594/2016 and 513595/2016.

¶30

None appears for the petitioner. 3. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320 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.

¶31

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. 6. 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 be numbered accordingly.

¶32

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

¶33

CRL.L.P. 671/2018 & connected matters

¶34

Page 4 of 5

¶35

This is a digitally signed order.

¶36

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 04/08/2025 at 12:19:33

¶37

The order be communicated to the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi for compliance and listing before the concerned Appellate Court on 08.09.2025.

¶38

The parties are directed to appear before the concerned Appellate Court on 08.09.2025.

¶39

Considering that the matters have been pending before this Court since the year 2018, the learned Sessions Court is requested to dispose of the matters expeditiously.

¶40

Copy of the order be also communicated to counsel for the parties who represented the petitioner and respondent in the present cases.

¶41

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

¶42

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶43

JULY 29, 2025 “SS”

¶44

CRL.L.P. 671/2018 & connected matters

¶45

Page 5 of 5

¶46

This is a digitally signed order.

¶47

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 04/08/2025 at 12:19:33

Rahul Jain v. State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Jain v. State & Anr.

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

Reeta Gandhi Vs Smt Santosh Dewan & Anr.

Nitin Kumar and Others Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Miss Kamini Khanna Vs Commissioner of Police and Anr.

State Vs Harbir

Smt a Vs State NCT Delhi & Anr.

Akash Kumar Vs State NCT of Delhi