Disposed¶32

Rabindra Nath Panda v. Gunanidhi Sahoo

Orissa HC25 Sept 2025CRLLP/15/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court CRLLP 15/2025; complainant's leave to appeal against acquittal in Section 138 NI Act cheque-dishonour case (1.C.C. No.132 of 2012 / Trial No.692 of 2022, acquittal judgment 07.10.2024 by J.M.F.C.-III Cuttack); application under Section 419(4) BNSS; appeal by complainant as victim under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. without special leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.; reliance on Celestium Financial vs. Gnanasekaran Etc. (2025) SCC Online SC 1320; liberty to appeal within four weeks with condonation of delay, lenient view by trial court.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the Petitioner-complainant to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. within four weeks, along with an application for condonation of delay; the learned trial court to consider the condonation application by taking a lenient view.

Rabindra Nath Panda Vs Gunanidhi Sahoo — Cheque Dishonour | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the complainant-Petitioner, aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused in 1.C.C. No.132 of 2012, may be granted liberty to prefer an appeal against the acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. instead of seeking leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

This Court observed, on perusal of Celestium Financial, that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has equated the complainant with the victim described in the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., thereby recognising the complainant's right to prefer an appeal under that proviso.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The complainant can prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. before the Appellate Court instead of seeking leave of this Court under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C.

¶30

Key takeaways

The leave application is disposed of by granting the Petitioner liberty to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. within four weeks, together with an application for condonation of delay, and the learned trial court shall consider the condonation application by taking a lenient view.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRLLP No.15 of 2025 (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, decided 25.09.2025, Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, J.): Complainant Rabindra Nath Panda filed this application under Section 419(4) of BNSS seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal judgment dated 07.10.2024 of the learned J.M.F.C.-III (Cog. Taking), Cuttack in 1.C.C. No.132 of 2012 (Trial No.692 of 2022), a Section 138 N.I. Act complaint case. Relying on Celestium Financial vs. Gnanasekaran Etc., (2025) SCC Online SC 1320, wherein the Supreme Court equated the complainant with the victim under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., this Court held that the complainant can prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. before the Appellate Court instead of seeking leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. The leave application was disposed of with liberty to file such appeal within four weeks together with a condonation-of-delay application, the trial court being directed to take a lenient view of the delay.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLLP No.15 of 2025

¶3

Rabindra Nath Panda

¶4

.....

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

Represented By Adv. - Manas Ranjan Dhal

¶7

-versus-

¶8

Gunanidhi Sahoo

¶9

..... Opposite Party Mr. Amitabh Naik, Adv.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

25.09.2025

Order No.

04.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party undertakes to file Vakalatnama in Court today. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein.

¶18

The present application has been filed under Section 419(4) of BNSS by the complainant against the judgment dated 07.10.2024 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.-III (Cog. Taking), Cuttack in 1.C.C. No.132 of 2012 which corresponds to Trial No.692 of 2022.

¶19

The above noted 1.C.C. case was registered on the basis of a complaint alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. During the trial the accused persons

¶20

Page 1 of 4.

¶21

were summoned and they faced trial. Eventually, the learned trial court has delivered the judgment of acquittal against the accusedOpposite party. Being aggrieved by such order the complainant has approached this Court by filing the present application under the provision of Section 419(4) of BNSS seeking leave to prefer an appeal.

¶22

In course of argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner, drawing attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial vs. Gnanasekaran Etc. reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 1320, contended that right of the complainant to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. has been recognized by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner is permitted to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C.

¶23

On perusal of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial’s case ( Supra ), this Court observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has equated the complainant with the victim as has been described in the proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the right of the complainant to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 has been recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the complainant was granted liberty to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. In the aforesaid context, it would be profitable to refer to the relevant portion of the judgment. Para-9 & Para-10 of the judgment are quoted herein below:-

¶24

9. “In the circumstances, we find that Section 138 of the Act being in the nature of a penal provision by a

¶25

Page 2 of 4.

¶26

deeming fiction against an accused who is said to have committed an offence under the said provision, if acquitted, can be proceeded against by a victim of the said offence, namely, the person who is entitled to the proceeds of a cheque which has been dishonoured, in terms of the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., as a victim. As already noted, a victim of an offence could also be a complainant. In such a case, an appeal can be preferred either under the proviso to Section 372 or under Section 378 by such a victim. In the absence of the proviso to Section 372, a victim of an offence could not have filed an appeal as such, unless he was also a complainant, in which event he could maintain an appeal if special leave to appeal had been granted by the High Court and if no such special leave was granted then his appeal would not be maintainable at all. On the other hand, if the victim of an offence, who may or may not be the complainant, proceeds under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., then in our view, such a victim need not seek special leave to appeal from the High Court. In other words, the victim of an offence would have the right to prefer an appeal, inter alia, against an order of acquittal in terms of the proviso to Section 372 without seeking any special leave to appeal from the High Court only on the grounds mentioned therein. A person who is a complainant under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. who complains about the offence committed by a person who is charged as an accused under Section 138 of the Act, thus has the right to prefer an appeal as a victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.

¶27

10. As already noted, the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. was inserted in the statute book only with effect from 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such insertion must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the victim of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the victim of an offence is a complainant, he can still proceed under the

¶28

Page 3 of 4.

¶29

proviso to Section 372 and need not advert to sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the Cr.P.C.”

¶30

In view of the aforesaid conclusion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial’s case ( supra ), this Court is of the view that the complainant can very prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. before the Appellate Court instead of seeking leave of this Court under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party does not dispute the aforesaid legal position. However, learned counsel for the Opposite party-accused raised a question with regard to the limitation.

¶31

Considering such submissions made by learned counsels appearing for both sides, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial’s case ( supra ), this Court disposes of the leave application by granting liberty to the Petitioner to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. within a period of four weeks from today along with an application for condonation of delay. In such eventuality, the learned trial court shall consider the application for condonation of delay by taking a lenient view.

¶32

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the CRLLP stands disposed of.

¶33

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )

¶34

Judge

¶35

S.K. Rout

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed Page 4 of 4. Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 25-Sep-2025 19:49:34

Rabindra Nath Panda v. Gunanidhi Sahoo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rabindra Nath Panda v. Gunanidhi Sahoo

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

Asst.Regr.Companies Vs C.N.Garg and Ors.

Pramod Ku.Agarwal Vs Kamal Ku.Agarwal

State Pollution Cont Vs Prakash Industries L

Prasanna Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)

Gita Raha Vs State of Odisha

Ankit Kumar Pandey Vs State of Odisha