Remanded¶39

Mandeep Sharma v. Hans Raj

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Aug 2025CRM-A/113/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 378(4) CrPC leave to appeal acquittal; proviso to Section 372 CrPC victim's right to appeal; Celestium Financial 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208; Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act cheque dishonour Rs.3,10,000; JMFC Dabwali Sirsa acquittal 01.12.2022; complaint dated 20.01.2017; remand to Sessions Judge Sirsa; CRM-A-113-2023 (O&M); Punjab & Haryana High Court; Vinod S. Bhardwaj; Mandeep Sharma; Hans Raj.

What did the court decide?

Leave application remanded to the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa, to be treated as an appeal under Section 372 CrPC and entrusted to the appropriate Court for disposal on merits; Registry directed to send the complete paper-book and record to the Sessions Judge, Sirsa forthwith; main case and pending miscellaneous applications disposed of accordingly; exemption application CRM-2860-2023 allowed. ¶39

Mandeep Sharma Vs Hans Raj — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent in the Section 138 NI Act complaint, must obtain special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC to appeal, or whether, per Celestium Financial, the matter should proceed as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC before the Court of Sessions.

¶16

Court's answer

In view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Celestium Financial, the present application seeking leave to appeal is remanded to the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa, with a direction to treat the same as an appeal filed under Section 372 CrPC and entrust the same to the appropriate Court for its disposal on merits.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

The Registry is directed to send the complete paper-book and the record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa forthwith.

¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.), CRM-A-113-2023 (O&M), decided 25.08.2025 — Applicant Mandeep Sharma had sought leave under Section 378(4) CrPC to appeal the acquittal dated 01.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabwali, Sirsa, of respondent Hans Raj in a complaint dated 20.01.2017 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, arising from dishonour of a cheque of Rs.3,10,000/-. Relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208 (speaking through Justice B.V. Nagarathna) that a victim has an absolute, unconditional right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC and that insistence on special leave under Section 378(4) would be contrary to what Parliament intended, this Court remanded the leave application to the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa, with a direction to treat it as an appeal filed under Section 372 CrPC and entrust it to the appropriate Court for disposal on merits; the Registry was directed to send the complete paper-book and record to the Sessions Judge, Sirsa forthwith. Exemption application CRM-2860-2023 (filing of true typed copy of the impugned judgment) was allowed. Disposed of accordingly.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

241

¶3

CRM-A-113-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.08.2025

Mandeep Sharma

...Applicant

VERSUS

Hans Raj

...Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

¶10

Present :- Ms. Baljeet Kaur Bhardwaj, as Amicus Curiae, for Mr. Paramjit Singh Jammu, Advocate, for the applicant. *****

¶11

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

¶12

CRM-2860-2023

¶13

Prayer in the application is for exempting the applicant from filing the true typed copy of the impugned judgment dated 01.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Dabwali.

¶14

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the applicant is exempted from filing the true typed copy of the impugned judgment dated 01.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Dabwali .

¶15

Main case:

¶16

The present application has been preferred under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CR.P.C.’) seeking grant of leave to appeal the judgment of acquittal dated 01.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabwali, Sirsa, in a case stemming from complaint dated 20.01.2017 filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶17

The complaint (supra) was filed on the ground of dishonour of

¶18

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.08.29 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

¶20

241 CRM-A-113-2023 (O&M)

¶21

cheque of Rs.3,10,000/-. After assessing all the material available on the record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent(s) vide judgment dated 01.12.2022.

¶22

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208 , after considerable discussion and comparative interpretation of Sections 372 and 378(4) of Cr.P.C., concluded that the victim has a right to file an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions. Speaking through Justice B.V. Nagarathna, the following was held:

¶23

“ 7.12 The reasons for the above distinction are not far to see and can be elaborated as follows:

¶24

Firstly , the victim of a crime must have an absolute right to prefer an appeal which cannot be circumscribed by any condition precedent. In the instant case, a victim under Section 138 of the Act, i.e., a payee or the holder of a cheque is a person who has suffered the impact of the offence committed by a person who is charged of the offence, namely, the accused, whose cheque has been dishonoured.

¶25

Secondly , the right of a victim of a crime must be placed on par with the right of an accused who has suffered a conviction, who, as a matter of right can prefer an appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. A person convicted of a crime has the right to prefer an appeal under Section 374 as a matter of right and not being subjected to any conditions. Similarly, a victim of a

¶26

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.08.29 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

¶28

241

¶29

CRM-A-113-2023 (O&M)

¶30

crime, whatever be the nature of the crime, unconditionally must have a right to prefer an appeal.

¶31

Thirdly , it is for this reason that the Parliament thought it fit to insert the proviso to sub-section 372 without mandating any condition precedent to be fulfilled by the victim of an offence, which expression also includes the legal representatives of a deceased victim who can prefer an appeal.

¶32

On the contrary, as against an order of acquittal, the State, through the Public Prosecutor can prefer an appeal even if the complainant does not prefer such an appeal, though of course such an appeal is with the leave of the court. However, it is not always necessary for the State or a complainant to prefer an appeal. But when it comes to a victim’s right to prefer an appeal, the insistence on seeking special leave to appeal from the High Court under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. would be contrary to what has been intended by the Parliament by insertion of the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.

¶33

Fourthly , the Parliament has not amended Section 378 to circumscribe the victim’s right to prefer an appeal just as it has with regard to a complainant or the State filing an appeal. On the other hand, the Parliament has inserted the proviso to Section 372 so as to envisage a superior right for the victim of an offence to prefer an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein as compared to a complainant.

¶34

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.08.29 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

¶36

241

¶37

CRM-A-113-2023 (O&M)

¶38

Fifthly , the involvement of the State in respect of an offence under Section 138 of the Act is conspicuous by its absence. This is because the complaint filed under that provision is in the nature of a private complaint as per Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 143 of the Act by an express intention incorporates the provisions of the Cr.P.C. in the matter of trial of such a deemed offence tried as a criminal offence. Therefore, the complainant, who is the victim of a dishonour of cheque must be construed to be victim in terms of the proviso to Section 372 read with the definition of victim under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C.

¶39

Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Celestium Financial (supra) , the present application seeking leave to appeal is remanded to the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa with a direction to treat the same as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to appropriate Court for its disposal on merits.

¶40