Intec Capital Ltd. Vs Mohanraj Rikhabdas Sand

The present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973¹ assails the judgment dated 18^th October, 2019 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act)(South East) Saket Courts, New Delhi in C.C. No. 630376/2016 titled as ‘M/s Intec Capital Ltd. v. Mohanraj Rikhabdas Sand’, whereby the Respondent has been acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881² .

¶12

At the outset, the Appellant who is present in person, seeks transfer of the present leave to appeal to the Court of Sessions and that it be treated as an appeal, in light of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran³ .

¶13

In the said decision, the Supreme Court clarified the legal position regarding appeals against acquittals under Section 138 of NI Act and held

¶14

1 “Cr.P.C.”

¶15

2 “NI Act”

¶16

3 2025 INSC 804

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 11/08/2025 at 14:09:04

¶19

that a complainant under Section 138, who suffers financial loss due to the dishonour of a cheque, qualifies as a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the Court ruled that such a complainant is entitled to benefit from the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., to prefer an appeal against acquittal without having the need to obtain leave under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C.

¶20

In light of the Supreme Court’s recent clarification of the legal position, it is now evident that the Appellant, being a complainant under Section 138 of NI Act, is entitled to file an appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal under Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023⁴ (previously Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.) before the Sessions Court. If this Court were to proceed to hear and decide the appeal at this stage, it could deprive the parties of an available forum for further challenge.

¶21

In light of the above, it is deemed fit to direct that the present leave to appeal be transferred to the concerned Appellate Court of Sessions and be considered as an appeal under the proviso to Section 413 of BNSS. Let the appeal be numbered accordingly.

¶22

The entire record of the present case, including the requisitioned copy of the Trial Court Record, is directed to be transferred to the concerned Appellate Court of Sessions.

¶23

Furthermore, considering that the leave to appeal has been pending for a considerable time, the concerned Sessions Court is requested to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.

¶24

Parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Court of Sessions on 20^th August, 2025.

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 11/08/2025 at 14:09:04

¶27

A copy of the order be sent to the concerned Principal District and Sessions Judge for necessary information, compliance and for listing of the matter before the concerned Appellate Court on 20^th August, 2025.

¶28

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶29

AUGUST 6, 2025 mk

¶30

4 “BNSS”

¶31

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 11/08/2025 at 14:09:04

Intec Capital Ltd. v. Mohanraj Rikhabdas Sand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Intec Capital Ltd. v. Mohanraj Rikhabdas Sand

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

Puneet Kumar Aggarwal Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anothers

Shri Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

Deepak & Ors. Vs the State ( Gnctd) and Ors. & Anr.

Shalini Kakkar Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Mohd. Furkan Vs State NCT of Dlehi

S.C. Luthra Vs Ajay Sharma