Disposed¶7

Jolly v. Pandit Ramesh Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Nov 2025CRM-A/1458/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.138 NI Act cheque dishonour; complainant as 'victim' under S.2(wa) Cr.P.C.; appeal against acquittal by complainant under proviso to S.372 Cr.P.C.; no special leave required under S.378(4) Cr.P.C.; M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804, followed; leave to appeal (CRM-A) remanded to learned Sessions Judge, Karnal to be treated as S.372 appeal; acquittal dated 04.06.2016 by JMIC Karnal; Punjab & Haryana High Court; Aaradhna Sawhney, J.; decided 17.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Leave-to-appeal application remanded to the learned Sessions Judge, Karnal with direction to treat it as an appeal under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. (who may retain it or assign it to a competent Court); Registry directed to transmit the order with the complete paper-book and return the trial Court record; pending applications disposed of.

Jolly Vs Pandit Ramesh Kumar — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether an appeal against an order of acquittal passed in a complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act can be entertained under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. at the instance of the complainant.

¶2

Court's answer

Answering the framed question by following M/s Celestium Financial (2025 INSC 804), the Court held that a complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act qualifies as a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C., being the person who suffers financial loss due to the dishonour of a cheque.

¶3

Ratio / Principle

Such a Section 138 complainant is entitled to pursue an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., without the requirement of seeking special leave under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C.

¶3

Key takeaways

Adopting a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach, on the principle that procedural rules must serve and not obstruct the course of justice, the Court directed that the present appeal be treated as one instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.ratio¶4
In view of Celestium Financial (supra), the application seeking leave to appeal is remanded to the learned Sessions Judge, Karnal with a direction to treat it as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.; the Sessions Judge may retain the appeal on his/her Board or assign it to some other Court of competent jurisdiction.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Aaradhna Sawhney, J., oral order dated 17.11.2025) in CRM-A-1458-MA-2016 (O&M): Jolly, complainant in a cheque-dishonour complaint dated 03.03.2015 under S.138 NI Act, sought leave to appeal against her acquittal dated 04.06.2016 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal. Sole question: whether a complainant's appeal against acquittal in a S.138 case is entertainable under the proviso to S.372 Cr.P.C. Following M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804 : 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208, the Court held that a S.138 complainant qualifies as a 'victim' under S.2(wa) Cr.P.C. and is entitled to appeal against acquittal under the proviso to S.372 Cr.P.C. without special leave under S.378(4) Cr.P.C.; and, on the principle that procedural rules must serve and not obstruct justice, directed that the appeal be treated as instituted under the proviso to S.372 Cr.P.C., remanding the leave application to the learned Sessions Judge, Karnal to deal with it as a S.372 appeal (retaining it or assigning it to a competent Court), with directions to the Registry to transmit the order and paper-book and return the trial Court record. Disposed of accordingly; pending applications also disposed of.

¶1

CRM-A-1458-MA-2016 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

240

¶5

CRM-A-1458-MA-2016 (O&M)

¶6

Date of decision: 17.11.2025

Jolly

...Appellant

Versus

Pandit Ramesh Kumar ...Respondent

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY

¶12

Present : Ms. Amyia Malhotra, Advocate for Ms. Garima Jindal, Advocate for the appellant.

¶13

¶14

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J.(ORAL)

¶15

The applicant has filed the present application seeking grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 04.06.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, in a case stemming from complaint dated 03.03.2015 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter ‘NI Act’)

¶16

2. The limited question arising for consideration in the present proceedings is whether an appeal against an order of acquittal passed in a complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act can be entertained under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. at the instance of the complainant?

¶17

3. The issue is no longer res integra. In ‘M/s Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. 2025 INSC 804: 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208’ , the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that a complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act, qualifies as a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C., being the person who suffers financial loss due to the dishonour of a cheque. Consequently, such a complainant is entitled to pursue an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., without the requirement of seeking special leave under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C.

¶18

4. Adopting a pragmatic and justice oriented approach and guided

¶19

HAMANT 2025.11.19 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRM-A-1458-MA-2016 (O&M)

¶21

¶22

by the principle that procedural rule must serve and not obstruct the course of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct that the present appeal be treated as one authoritatively instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.

¶23

5. Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Celestium Financial (supra) , the present application seeking leave to appeal is remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge, Karnal with a direction to treat the same as appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge may retain the said appeal on his/her Board or assign it to some other Court of competent jurisdiction.

¶24

6. The Registry is directed to transmit this order along with copy of the complete paper-book and return the trial Court record, if received, to the learned Sessions Judge, concerned.

¶25

7. Disposed of accordingly.

¶26

8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶27

	(AARADHN JU	A SAWHNEY) DGE
17.11.2025
Hemant
	Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes	/ No
	Whether reportable : Yes	/ No

¶28

HAMANT 2025.11.19 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Jolly v. Pandit Ramesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jolly v. Pandit Ramesh Kumar

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

Rahul Alias Kalu and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Rajat Vs State of Punjab

Arvind Vs State of Haryana

Jarnail Singh Vs State of Punjab

Asha Sharma Vs Shyam Sunder Sharma

The Lehragaga Primary Co-Operative Agriculture Development Bank Limited Vs Manjit Kaur