Disposed¶41

Jai Singh v. Prem Kumar Saini

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Aug 2025CRM-A/132/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Leave to appeal acquittal; Section 378(4) CrPC special leave; Section 372 CrPC proviso; victim's right to appeal; Court of Sessions; Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act 1881; cheque dishonour Rs.50,000; Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208; remand to Sessions Judge Hisar; condonation of delay 162 days; CRM-A-132-2019 (O&M); Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Hisar acquittal 17.04.2018/19.04.2018.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 162 days condoned; leave application remanded to the learned Sessions Judge, Hisar with direction to treat it as an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and entrust it to the appropriate Court for disposal on merits; Registry directed to send the complete paper-book and record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Hisar forthwith; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Jai Singh Vs Prem Kumar Saini — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the prayer for condonation of delay of 162 days in filing the present appeal should be allowed. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

The application CRM-1034-2019 for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay of 162 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Celestium Financial (supra), the present application seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC is remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge, Hisar with a direction to treat the same as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to the appropriate Court for its disposal on merits.

¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Sandeep Moudgil, J.) — Applicant Jai Singh sought leave under Section 378(4) CrPC to appeal the acquittal (dated 17.04.2018/19.04.2018, JMFC Hisar) of respondent Prem Kumar Saini in a Section 138 NI Act complaint arising from dishonour of a cheque of Rs.50,000/-. Placing reliance on the Supreme Court's ruling in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208, that a victim/complainant has an absolute right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC before the Court of Sessions without seeking special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC, the Court condoned the 162-day delay (CRM-1034-2019) and, instead of granting leave, remanded the application back to the learned Sessions Judge, Hisar with a direction 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 send the complete paper-book and record to the Sessions Judge, Hisar forthwith. Disposed of accordingly, along with pending miscellaneous applications.

¶1

CRM-A-132-2019

¶2

-1 -

¶3

267 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-A-132-2019 (O&M) DECIDED ON:21.08.2025

JAI SINGH

…..APPLICANT

VERSUS

PREM KUMAR SAINI

…..RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.

¶11

Present: Mr. Sunny Bhardwaj, Advocate for the applicant.

¶12

¶13

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

¶14

CRM-1034-2019

¶15

Prayer in the present application is for condonation of delay of 162 days in filing the present appeal.

¶16

In view of averments made in the application the same is allowed and delay of 162 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

¶17

CRM-A-132-2019 (O&M)

¶18

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 17.04.2018/19.04.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar, in a case stemming from complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶19

SHAM SUNDER 2025.08.23 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRM-A-132-2019

¶21

-2 -

¶22

The complaint (supra) was filed on the ground of dishonour of cheque amounting to Rs.50,000/-. After assessing all the material available on the record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent(s) vide judgment dated 17.04.2018/19.04.2018.

¶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

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.

¶26

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 CrPC. 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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

SHAM SUNDER 2025.08.23 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CRM-A-132-2019

¶31

-3 -

¶32

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 CrPC would be contrary to what has been intended by the Parliament by insertion of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC.

¶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

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 CrPC and Section 143 of the Act by an express intention incorporates the provisions of the CrPC 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 CrPC.”

¶35

4 . Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in

¶36

Celestium Financial (supra), the present application seeking leave to appeal is

¶37

remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge, Hisar with a direction to treat the same as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to

¶38

appropriate Court for its disposal on merits.

¶39

5 . The Registry is directed to send the complete paper-book and the

¶40

record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Hisar forthwith.

¶41