Disposed¶23

Baldev Singh v. Paramjit Kaur and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Dec 2025CRM-A/1190/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Victim/complainant appeal against acquittal in private complaint; maintainability under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. and Section 413 BNSS 2023; Celestium Financial followed; leave to appeal converted into Section 372 appeal; Sessions Judge Sangrur directed; acquittal dated 18.03.2024 by JMFC Sangrur in COMI/61/2019; IPC Sections 323, 379, 506, 34; Baldev Singh v. Paramjit Kaur; Punjab and Haryana High Court; CRM-A-1190-2024 (O&M).

What did the court decide?

Leave-to-appeal application disposed of with direction to the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, to treat it as an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. (Section 413 BNSS, 2023), entrust it to an appropriate Court for decision on merits expeditiously, without adherence to any delay aspect; Registry to transmit the order and paper-book to the Sessions Judge, Sangrur. ¶23

Baldev Singh Vs Paramjit Kaur and Others — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant-complainant's leave to appeal against the acquittal in a private-complaint case is maintainable as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 413 BNSS, 2023) by treating the complainant as a 'victim' within Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C.

¶16

Court's answer

In view of the mandate in Celestium Financial (supra) and the views taken in M/s Associated Road Carriers Limited (supra) and Satish Kumar (supra), there exists no ground to take a different view: the complainant-victim's appeal against acquittal in a complaint case is to be entertained under Section 372 Cr.P.C.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The application is disposed of by directing the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, to treat the present leave to appeal as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 413 of BNSS, 2023), entrust it to any appropriate Court, which shall decide the appeal on merits as per law expeditiously.

¶23

Key takeaways

Since similar directions are being passed in a number of cases, the concerned Appellate Court need not adhere to any delay aspect involved in the case for considering the issue raised in the appeal and its disposal on merit.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Sanjay Vashisth, J.) disposed of applicant-complainant Baldev Singh's leave-to-appeal application (CRM-A-1190-2024, O&M) challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 18.03.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sangrur, in Complaint No. COMI/61/2019 (instituted 31.10.2019 under Sections 323, 379, 506, 34 IPC, titled 'Baldev Singh v. Paramjit Kaur and others'). Following the Apex Court mandate in M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran etc. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320) that a complainant in a private-complaint case is a 'victim' entitled under Section 2(wa) read with the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. (Section 413 BNSS, 2023) to appeal against acquittal before the Court of Sessions, and the concurring views of this Court in M/s Associated Road Carriers Ltd. v. Manjit Singh (CRM-A-885-MA-2013) and of a Co-ordinate Bench in Satish Kumar v. Jugal Kishor (CRM-A-2700-MA-2018), the Court found no ground to take a different view. The Sessions Judge, Sangrur was directed to treat the leave to appeal as an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C., entrust it to an appropriate Court for expeditious decision on merits, without insistence on delay; the Registry was to transmit the order and paper-book forthwith.

¶1

CRM-A-1190-2024 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

235

¶5

CRM-A-1190-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 22, 2025

¶6

Baldev Singh

¶7

.....Applicant(s)

¶8

Versus

¶9

Paramjit Kaur and another

¶10

.....Non-applicant(s)/Respondent(s)

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

¶12

Present: None

¶13

¶14

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

¶15

Applicant – Baldev Singh has filed the present application seeking grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 18.03.2024, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sangrur, in Complaint case bearing No. COMI/61/2019, instituted on 31.10.2019, under Section(s) 323, 379, 506, 34 IPC, titled as ‘Baldev Singh v. Paramjit Kaur and others’, whereby the complaint filed by the applicant(s) herein has been dismissed by acquitting the accused.

¶16

Shorn off the factual matrix of the present case, it is suffice to notice that in the recent mandate of law laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court, in the case of M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran etc. [Criminal Appeal Nos. 1868-70 of 2025, decided on 08.04.2025, reported as 2025 (3) RCR (Criminal) 208 : Law Finder Doc Id # 2737710 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320] , their Lordships’ have answered the issue in affirmative that whether an appeal would be maintainable under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 413 of BNSS, 2023), against an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon a private complaint, by treating the complainant in such a proceeding as a ‘victim’ within the meaning ascribed to the term under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C.

¶17

PRASHANT KAPOOR 2025.12.22 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

¶18

CRM-A-1190-2024 (O&M)

¶19

¶20

After encapsulating in detail the provisions of Sections 2(d), (n) & (wa), 24, 200, 372, 377, 378, 386 of the Cr.P.C.; Sections 138, 139, 141, 142, 143 and 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; and the earlier view point of the Hon’ble Supreme Court taken in the case of Mallikarjun Kodagali (dead) represented through Legal representative v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752 , an ongoing debate whether the right of the victim to file an appeal against acquittal in a complaint case would fall under Section 372 or Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., has been put to rest. Succinctly, in Celestium Financial’s case (supra) it has been held that the ‘victim’ has a right to file an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions.

¶21

It is apposite to mention here that the judgment in the case of Celestium Financial (supra) has been followed and relied upon by this Court in the case of M/s Associated Road Carriers Limited v. Manjit Singh and others (CRM-A-885-MA-2013, decided on 07.07.2025) as well as by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Satish Kumar v. Jugal Kishor (CRM-A-2700-MA-2018, decided on 02.07.2025) .

¶22

Having gone through the recent mandate of Hon’ble the Apex Court in Celestium Financial’s case (supra) , and the view taken by this Court in the case of M/s Associated Road Carriers Limited (supra) as well as by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Satish Kumar (supra), there exists no ground to take a different view in the present case.

¶23

Accordingly, the present application is disposed of by directing the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, to treat the present leave to appeal as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 413 of BNSS, 2023) and entrust the same to any appropriate Court to try the same. The concerned Court shall decide the appeal on merits as per law, as expeditiously as possible.

¶24

Since similar directions are being passed by this Court in number of cases, the concerned Appellate Court need not to adhere to the

¶25

PRASHANT KAPOOR 2025.12.22 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

¶26

CRM-A-1190-2024 (O&M)

¶27

¶28

delay aspect, if any, involved in the case, for the purpose of considering the issue raised in the appeal and its disposal on merit.

¶29

The Registry is directed to transmit this order alongwith copy of the complete paper-book of this case, as also return the record of the Trial Court, if received, to the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, forthwith.

¶30

Disposed of accordingly.

¶31

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands

¶32

disposed of.

¶33

( SANJAY VASHISTH ) JUDGE

¶34

December 22, 2025 Pkapoor Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No

¶35

PRASHANT KAPOOR 2025.12.22 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

Baldev Singh v. Paramjit Kaur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baldev Singh v. Paramjit Kaur and Others

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

Vishal Alias Vicky Vs State of Haryana

Sher Singh Alias Prince Vs State of Punjab

Mohit Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Renu Mehta and Another Vs State of Punjab

Hardev Singh Vs Vineet Wadhera

Sandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab