Janak Dulari Vs Parmod Rana — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Janak Dulari Vs Parmod Rana — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of with a direction referring the matter to the Sessions Court for registration as an appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC / S. 413 BNSS, 2023; Registry directed to send the file along with the Lower Court's Record to the concerned Sessions Division; all pending applications, if any, closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the complainant's appeal against acquittal, pending before the High Court, should be transferred to the first Appellate Court (Sessions Court) to be pursued as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC / Section 413 BNSS, 2023, in view of Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran. +1 more

Court's answer

The complainant should not face the burden of filing an appeal again before the Sessions Court because the law has been interpreted recently.

Ratio / Principle

Section 413 of the BNSS, 2023 is analogous to Section 372 of the CrPC, 1973, and consequently the ratio of Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran shall apply.

Key takeaways

In the interest of Equity, Justice and Fair play, the matter is referred to the Sessions Court, where it will be registered as an Appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023, as applicable; if there is any objection regarding whether it is an appeal under the CrPC or BNSS, it shall be registered under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, because the CrPC, 1973, has been repealed.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Appeal by complainant against acquittal – CRA-AS-40-2018 (Punjab & Haryana HC, Anoop Chitkara J., 21.11.2025) – Trial court had dismissed the complaint (decided 10.04.2012) and acquitted the accused – Counsel sought transfer of the appeal to the first Appellate Court in view of Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208 (SC, decided 08.04.2025), wherein the Supreme Court held that a complainant who is the victim of an alleged Section 138 offence may proceed under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without electing Section 378 – Held by this Court: S. 413 BNSS, 2023 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, and the Celestium ratio applies; since the law has been recently interpreted, the complainant should not bear the burden of filing a fresh appeal, and the matter is referred to the Sessions Court for registration as an appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023 (or, if objected, under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, the CrPC 1973 having been repealed); Registry to send the file with the Lower Court's Record to the concerned Sessions Division – Appeal disposed of; pending applications closed. Speaking; not reportable.

CRA-AS-40-2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

205-2

CRA-AS-40-2018 Date of Decision: 21.11.2025

JANAK DULARI

..…..Appellant

Versus

PARMOD RANA ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Ms. Anjali, Advocate for Ms. Kiran Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Brijesh Mi�al, Advocate for the respondent.

ANOOP CHITKARA J.

Criminal No. 1053/2 Complaint Date of decision: 10.04.2012

Feeling aggrieved by the trial court's judgment, dismissing the complaint on merits, and acqui1ng the accused/respondent, the complainant had come up before this Court by filing the above-men5oned appeal.

Counsel for the appellant prays for transfer of appeal to the first Appellate Court in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in “Celes5um Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, decided on 08.04.2025”.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent endorses no objec5on to the prayer made by the applicant.

In Celes5um Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, decided on

08.04.2025, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

[7.8] In the case of an offence alleged against an accused under Sec5on 138 of the Act, we are of the view that the complainant is indeed the vic5m owing to the alleged dishonour of a cheque. In the circumstances, the complainant can proceed as per the proviso to Sec5on 372 of the CrPC and he may exercise such an op5on and he need not then elect to proceed under Sec5on 378 of the CrPC.

[8]. The right to prefer an appeal is no doubt a statutory right

JYOTI 2025.11.21 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRA-AS-40-2018

2

and the right to prefer an appeal by an accused against a convic5on is not merely a statutory right but can also be construed to be a fundamental right under Ar5cles 14 and 21 of the Cons5tu5on. If that is so, then the right of a vic5m of an offence to prefer an appeal cannot be equated with the right of the State or the complainant to prefer an appeal. Hence, the statutory rigours for filing of an appeal by the State or by a complainant against an order of acqui�al cannot be read into the proviso to Sec5on 372 of the CrPC so as to restrict the right of a vic5m to file an appeal on the grounds men5oned therein, when none exists.

[10]. As already noted, the proviso to Sec5on 372 of the CrPC was inserted in the statute book only with effect from 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such inser5on must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the vic5m of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Sec5on 372 of the CrPC, irrespec5ve of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the vic5m of an offence is a complainant, he can s5ll proceed under the proviso to Sec5on 372 and need not advert to sub-sec5on (4) of Sec5on 378 of the CrPC.

In BNSS, 2023, S. 413 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, and thus the ra5o of Celes5um Financial shall apply.

However, the complainant should not face the burden of filing an appeal again before the Sessions Court because the law has been interpreted recently. Therefore, in the interest of Equity, Jus5ce, and Fair play, it would be appropriate to refer this ma�er to the Sessions Court, where it will be registered as an Appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023, as applicable. If there is any objec5on regarding whether it is an appeal under the CrPC or BNSS, it shall be registered under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, because the CrPC, 1973, has been repealed.

Given above, the Registry is to send this file along with the Lower Court’s Record, if any, to the concerned Sessions Division.

Appeal is disposed of in the terms men5oned above. All pending applica5on(s), if any, stand closed.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

21.11.2025 jyo�-II Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: No.

JYOTI 2025.11.21 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.