Disposed¶15

Kusum Kaushik and Ors. v. Navdeep Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Sept 2025CRM-A/1518/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Leave to appeal under S.378(4)/S.372 proviso CrPC against acquittal in S.138 NI Act cheque-bounce complaint; complainant as 'victim' under S.2(wa) CrPC; Supreme Court precedent M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 SCC OnLine 1320) applied/relied upon; re-routing of appeal by Sessions Judge; BNSS 2023 S.413 correspondence; Punjab & Haryana High Court, single judge Aman Chaudhary, 12.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

The appeal/application was disposed of by directing the concerned Sessions Judge to treat it as filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and assign it to the Court concerned for decision; the Registry was further directed to send the complete paper-book and trial Court record, if received, along with the said order forthwith, while informing the parties. ¶15

Kusum Kaushik and Ors. Vs Navdeep Kumar — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for leave to appeal against the acquittal judgment in a Section 138 NI Act complaint is maintainable, and if so, under which provision (the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., the complainant being a 'victim') it should proceed.

¶14

Court's answer

In view of the Supreme Court's holding in M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 SCC OnLine 1320) that an appeal is maintainable under the proviso of Section 372 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 413 of BNSS, 2023) against an acquittal in a Section 138 NI Act complaint by treating the complainant as a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C., the present appeal is disposed of by directing the concerned Sessions Judge to treat it as having been filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and assign it to the Court concerned for decision.

¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Aman Chaudhary, J.), CRM-A-1518-MA-2018 (O&M), decision dated 12.09.2025 — Application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 30.04.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Deba Bassi in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 SCC OnLine 1320, that an appeal is maintainable under the proviso of Section 372 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 413 of BNSS, 2023) against acquittal in a Section 138 NI Act complaint by treating the complainant as a 'victim' within Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C., the Court disposed of the appeal by directing the concerned Sessions Judge to treat it as filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and assign it to the Court concerned for decision; the Registry was directed to forward the paper-book and trial Court record and inform the parties.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

218

¶3

CRM-A-1518-MA-2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.09.2025

¶4

Kusum Kaushik and Others

¶5

....applicant-appellants

Versus

Navdeep Kumar

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

¶10

¶11

Present : Mr. Prabhat Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the applicant-appellant

¶12

¶13

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

¶14

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 judgment of acquittal dated 30.04.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Deba Bassi in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter ‘NI Act’).

¶15

2 . Hon’ble the Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. , 2025 SCC OnLine 1320, held that an appeal is maintainable under the proviso of Section 372 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 413 of BNSS, 2023) against an order of acquittal passed in a complaint under Section 138 NI Act, by treating the complainant therein, as a ‘victim’ within the meaning under Section 2 (wa) of Cr.P.C, in view of which, the present appeal is disposed of by directing the concerned Sessions Judge, for treating it to have been filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. and assigning the same to the Court concerned for deciding it.

¶16

Registry is directed to send the complete paper-book and trial Court record, if received, along with the said order forthwit h, while also informing the parties.

¶17

12.09.2025	(AM	AN CHAUDHARY)
M.Kamra		JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes	/ No
Whether reportable	: Yes	/ No

¶18

MOHIT 2025.09.12 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kusum Kaushik and Ors. v. Navdeep Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kusum Kaushik and Ors. v. Navdeep 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

Dalip Singh Vs Jarnail Singh

Gagan Deep Uppal Alias Gagan Deep Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Another

Deepak Mital Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Bachan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Anil Gupta Vs Sai Infrapro Private Limited and Ors.

Abhimanyu Shoor @ Abhi Vs State of Punjab