Disposed¶32

Sukhdeep Singh v. Pooja Sharma

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Nov 2025CRA-AS/96/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.138 NI Act acquittal; leave to appeal; transfer of appeal to Sessions Court; proviso to Section 372 CrPC; Section 378(4) CrPC; S.413 BNSS 2023 analogous to S.372 CrPC 1973; victim-complainant right of appeal; Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208; Articles 14 and 21 Constitution; CrPC 1973 repealed; Punjab & Haryana High Court; Anoop Chitkara J.; CRA-AS-96-2018; Sukhdeep Singh v. Pooja Sharma; reportable: No.

What did the court decide?

Matter referred to the Sessions Court for registration as an Appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023, as applicable (or, if objected, under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023); Registry directed to send the file, with the Trial Court's record if any, to the concerned Sessions Division; all pending applications stand closed. ¶32

Sukhdeep Singh Vs Pooja Sharma — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant-complainant's challenge to the acquittal should be transferred to the Sessions Court and registered as an appeal under the proviso to S. 372 CrPC / S. 413 BNSS, 2023, instead of proceeding as an application for leave to appeal before the High Court. +1 more

¶16

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.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

S. 413 BNSS, 2023 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, and therefore the ratio of Celestium Financial shall apply.

¶26

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.ratio¶27
If there is any objection regarding whether the appeal is under the CrPC or the BNSS, it shall be registered under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, because the CrPC, 1973, has been repealed.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh — CRA-AS-96-2018, decided 11.11.2025 (Anoop Chitkara J.; speaking/reasoned: Yes; reportable: No). Aggrieved by the trial court's judgment dismissing his Section 138 NIA complaint (No. 4647/2012, decided 15.07.2013) and acquitting the accused/respondent (Pooja Sharma), the complainant-applicant (Sukhdeep Singh) 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). Holding that S. 413 BNSS, 2023 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, the Court applied the Supreme Court's ratio therein (a victim-complainant may proceed under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC). Because the law had been recently interpreted, the Court declined to put the complainant to the burden of filing the appeal afresh and, in the interest of Equity, Justice and Fair play, referred the matter to the Sessions Court for registration as an Appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023, as applicable; any objection on whether the appeal lies under the CrPC or the BNSS to be resolved in favour of the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, the CrPC, 1973 having been repealed. Registry directed to send the file, with the Trial Court's record if any, to the concerned Sessions Division; all pending applications stand closed.

¶1

��

¶2

CRA-AS-96-2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

212

¶5

CRA-AS-96-2018 Date of Decision: 11.11.2025

¶6

Sukhdeep Singh ......Applicant

¶7

Verus

¶8

Pooja Sharma ......Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶10

Present: Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate and Mr. Naveen Sharma (Moudgil), Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

¶12

ANOOP CHITKARA J.

¶13

Criminal u/s 138 NIA 4647/2012 Complaint Filing No.030400046472012 Date of decision: 15.07.2013

¶14

Feeling aggrieved by the trial court's judgment, dismissing the complaint on

¶15

merits, and acquitting the accused/respondent, the complainant had come up before this Court by filing the above-mentioned application for leave to appeal accompanying the appeal.

¶16

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

¶17

�� !��" �#$��%�&�� ' ��

¶18

[7.8] In the case of an offence alleged against an accused under Section 138 of the Act, we are of the view that the complainant is indeed the victim owing to the alleged dishonour of a cheque. In the circumstances, the

¶19

��

¶20

ANJU RANI 2025.11.12 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶21

��

¶22

CRA-AS-96-2018

¶23

complainant can proceed as per the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC and he may exercise such an option and he need not then elect to proceed under Section 378 of the CrPC.

¶24

[8]. The right to prefer an appeal is no doubt a statutory right and the right to prefer an appeal by an accused against a conviction is not merely a statutory right but can also be construed to be a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. If that is so, then the right of a victim 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 acquittal cannot be read into the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC so as to restrict the right of a victim to file an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein, when none exists.

¶25

[10]. As already noted, the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC 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 CrPC, 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 proviso to Section 372 and need not advert to sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the CrPC.

¶26

In BNSS, 2023, S. 413 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, and thus the ratio of ��shall apply.

¶27

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, Justice, and Fair play, it would be appropriate to refer this matter 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.

¶28

��

¶29

ANJU RANI 2025.11.12 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶30

��

¶31

CRA-AS-96-2018

¶32

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

¶33

)� �� � *��'�� $ ��. All pending application(s), if any, stand closed.