Disposed¶25

Tapas Kumar Dash v. Arindum Dash

Orissa HC6 Nov 2025CRLLP/3/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRLLP No.3 of 2025; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra; Section 378 Cr.P.C.; Section 256 Cr.P.C.; Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C.; proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.; Section 138 N.I. Act; cheque bounce; complainant as victim; Celestium Financial vs. Gnanasekaran; (2025) SCC Online SC 1320; acquittal; dismissal for non-appearance; maintainability; condonation of delay; lenient view; J.M.F.C. Balasore; 1CC Case No.604 of 2010; Tapas Kumar Dash; Arindum Dash; Biswajit Mohapatra

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the Petitioner to prefer an appeal against the order dated 09.07.2024 before the appellate forum along with an application for condonation of delay, if any, within four weeks from today; the learned Appellate Court to consider the delay by taking a lenient view. ¶25

Tapas Kumar Dash Vs Arindum Dash — Cheque Dishonour | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the present application filed under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. at the instance of the complainant-Petitioner challenging the acquittal dated 09.07.2024 is maintainable, in view of the law in Celestium Financial that a complainant under Section 138 N.I. Act is a 'victim' entitled to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

The present application at the instance of the Petitioner is not maintainable.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

In the present case the complainant-Petitioner can very well be treated as a 'victim' as defined under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C., and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial's case is squarely applicable to the Petitioner's case.

¶22

Key takeaways

While disposing of the application, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to prefer an appeal against the order dated 09.07.2024 before the appellate forum along with an application for condonation of delay, if any, within four weeks, and the learned Appellate Court shall consider the delay in preferring the appeal by taking a lenient view.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Application under Section 378 Cr.P.C. by the complainant in a Section 138 N.I. Act complaint case (1CC Case No.604 of 2010, J.M.F.C., Balasore) challenging the judgment of acquittal/order dated 09.07.2024 whereby the case was dismissed under Section 256 Cr.P.C. for non-appearance of the complainant. Held, following Celestium Financial vs. Gnanasekaran Etc., (2025) SCC Online SC 1320, a complainant in a Section 138 N.I. Act case can be equated with a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. and may prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.; the present application was held not maintainable and the CRLLP was disposed of with liberty to the complainant to appeal against the order dated 09.07.2024 before the appellate forum with an application for condonation of delay within four weeks, the appellate court to take a lenient view of the delay.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLLP No.3 of 2025

¶3

Tapas Kumar Dash ..... Petitioner

¶4

Represented By Adv. – Biswajit Mohapatra

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Arindum Dash

¶7

..... Opp. Parties

¶8

Represented By Adv. –

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

06.11.2025

Order No.

I.A. No.4 of 2025

¶15

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.

¶17

The present application has been filed under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. at the instance of the complainant-victim challenging the judgment of acquittal of order dated 09.07.2024 passed by the learned J.MF.C., Balasore in 1CC Case No.604 of 2010.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner who was the complainant before the learned trial Court in the above noted ICC Case, has filed the said complaint alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. He further submitted that after conclusion of the trial, the trial Court has acquitted the Opposite Party-accused vide judgment dated 09.07.2024 on the ground that the complainant was not

¶19

Page 1 of 3.

¶20

appearing and taking steps and hence the case was dismissed under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. Since the order dated 09.07.2024 is a final order passed in the 1CC case the same is an appealable one.

¶21

On a careful analysis of a factual background of the present case this Court observed that the complainant-Petitioner was a victim of a cheque bounce and as such he had filed a complaint alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. At this juncture, this Court would like to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial vs. Gnanasekaran Etc. reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 1320 , In the aforesaid reported judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the complainant in a complaint case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act can very well be equated with the ‘victim’ as defined and mentioned in section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, while disposing of the aforesaid case the Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted liberty to the complainant-victim to prefer an appeal directly under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid position and law, this Court found that in the present case the complainant can very well be treated as victim as has been defined under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial’s case (Supra) is squarely applicable to the present case of the Petitioner. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is of the view that the present application at the instance of the Petitioner is not maintainable. Hence, while disposing of the present application liberty is granted to the Petitioner to prefer an appeal against the order dated 09.07.2024 before the appellate forum along with an application for condonation of delay if any,

¶23

Page 2 of 3.

¶24

within a period of four weeks from today. In such eventuality, the learned Appellate Court shall consider the delay in preferring the appeal by taking a lenient view.

¶25

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the CRLLP stands disposed of.

¶26

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge

¶27

Sisir

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 07-Nov-2025 11:19:12

¶30

Page 3 of 3.

Tapas Kumar Dash v. Arindum Dash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tapas Kumar Dash v. Arindum Dash

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

Lokanath Mishra Vs Deo Ranjan Kumar Singh, IAS

Ajaya Das Vs Arun Bothra,Chairman Cum M.D of Osrtc

Lingaraj Behera Vs Anu Garg, I.A.S.

State of Orissa Vs Raghunath Pradhan

Sudhansu Kumar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Rajesh Jindal Vs Sashi Sankar Ray