Remanded¶44

Sudesh Kumar v. Satpal Kajal

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Aug 2025CRM-A/1201/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.378(4) CrPC leave to appeal; dismissal of application for restoration of S.138 NI Act complaint dismissed-in-default; cheque Rs.5,00,000/-; acquittal order dated 20.07.2016 JMFC Jind; Celestium Financial 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208 relied on — victim's right to appeal under proviso to S.372 CrPC before Sessions Court; remanded to Sessions Judge, Jind; delay of 541 days condoned; Punjab & Haryana High Court; Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj; 26.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to appeal remanded to the learned Sessions Judge, Jind, to be treated as an appeal under Section 372 CrPC and entrusted to the appropriate Court for disposal on merits; delay of 541 days condoned; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of; copy of order to the High Court Legal Service Committee. ¶44

Sudesh Kumar Vs Satpal Kajal — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether leave to appeal should be granted under Section 378(4) CrPC against the order of dismissal of the application for restoration of the complaint (the Section 138 NI Act complaint having been dismissed-in-default). +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

In view of the Apex Court's judgment in Celestium Financial, the application seeking leave to appeal is remanded to the learned Sessions Judge, Jind with a direction to treat it as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust it to the appropriate Court for disposal on merits.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

Delay of 541 days in filing the application for leave to appeal is condoned (application CRM-21747-2018 allowed).

¶14

Key takeaways

The Registry is directed to send the complete paper-book and the record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Jind forthwith.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J., oral) — CRM-A-1201-MA-2018 (O&M), decided 26.08.2025. Sudesh Kumar's application under Section 378(4) CrPC sought leave to appeal against the order dismissing his application for restoration of a Section 138 NI Act complaint (dishonour of cheque of Rs.5,00,000/-) before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jind; the judgment recites the complaint as dismissed-in-default and the trial court as having acquitted respondent Satpal Kajal vide order dated 20.07.2016. Delay of 541 days (CRM-21747-2018) was condoned and Legal Aid Counsel Tarranum Madan was appointed for the unrepresented applicant. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208 — that a victim has an absolute right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC before the Court of Sessions, and insistence on special leave under Section 378(4) would be contrary to parliamentary intent — the High Court remanded the application to the learned Sessions Judge, Jind to treat it as an appeal under Section 372 CrPC and entrust it to the appropriate Court for disposal on merits; the Registry was directed to forward the paper-book and record; matter disposed of accordingly.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

301

¶3

CRM-A-1201-MA-2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.08.2025

Sudesh Kumar

...Applicant(s)

VERSUS

Satpal Kajal ...Respondent(s)

¶8

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

¶9

Present :- None for the applicant(s).

¶10

¶11

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

¶12

CRM-21747-2018

¶13

Prayer in the application is for condonation of delay of 541 days in filing the application for leave to appeal.

¶14

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 541 days in filing the application for leave to appeal is condoned.

¶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 against the order of dismissal of the application for restoration of the complaint, which had been dismissed-in-default vide order dated 20.07.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jind in a case stemming from complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶17

The complaint (supra) was filed on the ground of dishonour of cheque of Rs.5,00,000/-. After assessing all the material available on the

¶18

MANGAL SINGH 2025.09.02 08:57 I am the author of this document

¶19

¶20

301 CRM-A-1201-MA-2018 (O&M)

¶21

record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent(s) vide order dated 20.07.2016.

¶22

It is noticed that the instant application pertains to the year 2018, however, no one has been entered appearance on behalf of the applicant(s), hence, it is deemed expedient to nominated a Legal Aid Counsel, Mr. Tarranum Madan, Advocate, who is present in the Court, is appointed as the Legal Aid Counsel to represent the case on behalf of applicant(s) to arrive at a decision. She has gone through the case file and submits that the present application has been filed against the order of dismissal of the application for restoration of the complaint, which had been dismissed-in-default vide order dated 20.07.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jind, in complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. She fairly submits that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208 , the applicant would have a remedy before the Court of Sessions.

¶23

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:

¶24

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

¶25

MANGAL SINGH 2025.09.02 08:57 I am the author of this document

¶26

¶27

301

¶28

CRM-A-1201-MA-2018 (O&M)

¶29

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.

¶30

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 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

¶33

MANGAL SINGH 2025.09.02 08:57 I am the author of this document

¶34

¶35

301

¶36

CRM-A-1201-MA-2018 (O&M)

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

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.”

¶40

MANGAL SINGH 2025.09.02 08:57 I am the author of this document

¶41

¶42

CRM-A-1201-MA-2018 (O&M)

¶43

301

¶44

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, Jind 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.

¶45

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

¶46

Disposed of accordingly. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶47

A copy of this order be sent to the High Court Legal Service Committee for information and necessary action.

¶48

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JUDGE

¶49

26.08.2025 Mangal Singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶50

MANGAL SINGH 2025.09.02 08:57 I am the author of this document

Sudesh Kumar v. Satpal Kajal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudesh Kumar v. Satpal Kajal

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

Ram Nath Vs Dharinder Kumar Sabherwal and Another

Mandeep Sharma Vs Hans Raj

Balwinder Singh Vs M/S Gurdev Enterprises and Another

M/S Shree Vishnu Traders Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Krishan Lal Vs Trilochan Singh

Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi Vs State of Punjab