Disposed¶25

Navdeep Kumar v. Bhoop Ram

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Sept 2025CRA-AS/382/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Leave to appeal against acquittal in Section 138 NI Act cheque-dishonour complaint; complainant as 'victim' under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C.; appeal maintainable under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. without special leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.; Celestium Financial, 2025 INSC 804 relied on; application remanded to learned Sessions Judge; acquittal dated 13.09.2016 by JMIC Abohar; Punjab and Haryana High Court; Aaradhna Sawhney J.; decided 05.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to appeal treated as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. and remanded to the concerned learned Sessions Judge for adjudication. ¶25

Navdeep Kumar Vs Bhoop Ram — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal treated as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. and remanded to the concerned learned Sessions Judge for adjudication.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether an appeal against an order of acquittal passed in a complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act can be entertained under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. at the instance of the complainant.

¶16

Court's answer

The question whether a Section 138 NI Act complainant may appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. is no longer res integra, being settled by the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Adopting a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach, this Court directs that the present appeal be treated as one authoritatively instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.

¶22

Key takeaways

In view of the Apex Court judgment in Celestium Financial (supra), the application seeking leave to appeal is remanded to the concerned learned Sessions Judge with a direction to treat it as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.; the Sessions Judge may retain it on his/her Board or assign it to another court of competent jurisdiction.ratio¶23
The Registry is directed to transmit this order with a copy of the complete paper-book and return the trial Court record, if received, to the learned Sessions Judge concerned.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Aaradhna Sawhney, J.), CRA-AS-382-2023 (O&M), decided 05.09.2025: An application for leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 13.09.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar in a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act (complaint dated 01.12.2015) was disposed of by treating it as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. Relying on M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804 : 2025 (3) RCR (Criminal) 208, the Court recorded that the issue is no longer res integra: a Section 138 complainant qualifies as a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. and may pursue an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. without special leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. The application was remanded to the concerned learned Sessions Judge, who may retain it on his/her Board or assign it to another court of competent jurisdiction; the Registry was directed to transmit the order and paper-book and return the trial Court record.

¶1

CRA-AS-382-2023 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

218 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRA-AS-382-2023 Date of Decision: 05.09.2025

Navdeep Kumar

...Applicant

Versus

Bhoop Ram

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY

¶11

Present: Mr. Raman Mohinder Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.

¶12

Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

¶13

¶14

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (ORAL)

¶15

The applicant has filed the present application seeking grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 13.09.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar in a case stemming from complaint dated 01.12.2015 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter ‘NI Act’).

¶16

The limited question arising for consideration in the present proceedings is whether an appeal against an order of acquittal passed in a complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act can be entertained under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. at the instance of the complainant?

¶17

The issue is no longer res integra. In ‘ M/s Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. 2025 INSC 804: 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208 ’, the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that a complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act, qualifies as a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) of

¶18

PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.09.09 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CRA-AS-382-2023 (O&M)

¶20

¶21

the Cr.P.C., being the person who suffers financial loss due to the dishonour of a cheque. Consequently, such a complainant is entitled to pursue an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., without the requirement of seeking special leave under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C.

¶22

Adopting a pragmatic and justice oriented approach and guided by the principle that procedural rule must serve and not obstruct the course of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct that the present appeal be treated as one authoritatively instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.

¶23

Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Celestium Financial (supra), the present application seeking leave to appeal is remanded back to the concerned learned Sessions Judge with a direction to treat the same as appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge may retain the said appeal on his/her Board or assign it to some other Court of competent jurisdiction.

¶24

The Registry is directed to transmit this order along with copy of the complete paper-book and return the trial Court record, if received, to the learned Sessions Judge, concerned.

¶25

Disposed of accordingly.

¶26

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶27

(AARADHNA SAWHNEY) 05.09.2025 JUDGE

¶28

Parveen kumar

¶29

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable :Yes/No

¶30

PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.09.09 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Navdeep Kumar v. Bhoop Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navdeep Kumar v. Bhoop Ram

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

M/S Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited Vs Nachattar Singh

Pal Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another

Daaman Bali Vs State of Punjab

Lalit Kumar Jhamb and Another Vs State of Haryana and Another

Sonu Alias Sonu Bekri Wala Vs State of Punjab

Gurpreet Singh @ Lucky Vs State of Punjab