Gpg Cattle Feed Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ranjit Singh — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Gpg Cattle Feed Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ranjit Singh — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Leave-to-appeal application disposed of by referring the matter to the Sessions Court for registration as an appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023; Registry directed to send the file, along with the Lower Court's Record if any, to the concerned Sessions Division; all pending applications closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the complainant's application for leave to appeal (against acquittal in a Section 138 cheque-dishonour case) should be transferred to the first Appellate Court and registered as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC / Section 413 BNSS, 2023, in view of Celestium Financial. +1 more

Court's answer

In the interest of equity, justice and fair play, the matter is referred to the Sessions Court, to be registered as an Appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023, as applicable, so that the complainant is spared the burden of filing the appeal afresh.

Ratio / Principle

Section 413, BNSS 2023 is analogous to Section 372, CrPC 1973; therefore the ratio of Celestium Financial — under which the victim-complainant in a Section 138 matter may appeal under the proviso to Section 372/413 without electing Section 378(4) — shall apply.

Key takeaways

If there is any objection regarding whether the appeal lies under the CrPC or the BNSS, it shall be registered under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, because the CrPC, 1973, has been repealed.ratio¶¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (Anoop Chitkara J.), decision dated 01.12.2025, in CRM-A-154-2021 — GPG Cattle Feed Pvt Ltd (applicant/complainant) v. Ranjit Singh (respondent/accused). The complainant, aggrieved by the trial court's judgment dated 25.02.2020 (Complaint CIS No. NACT/152/2017, CNR No. PBFZ03-00791-2017) dismissing on merits its cheque-dishonour complaint under Section 138 of the Act and acquitting the accused, had sought leave to appeal. Counsel prayed for transfer of the appeal to the first Appellate Court in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208 (decided 08.04.2025), under which a complainant who is the victim of cheque dishonour may proceed under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without electing Section 378(4). Holding Section 413 BNSS, 2023 analogous to Section 372 CrPC, 1973, and applying the Celestium ratio, the Court referred the matter to the Sessions Court for registration as an Appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023, directing that any objection on CrPC-versus-BNSS be resolved in favour of BNSS since the CrPC, 1973 stands repealed. Leave to appeal disposed of; pending applications closed. Speaking/reasoned: Yes; Reportable: No.

CRM-A-154-2021

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

204-2

CRM-A-154-2021

Date of Decision: 01.12.2025

GPG CATTLE FEED PVT LTD

......Applicant

Versus

RANJIT SINGH

......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present: Mr. Gurmeet Singh Saini, Advocate for the applicant.

ANOOP CHITKARA J.

Criminal	No. 30
Complaint	CIS No. NACT/152/2017
	CNR No. PBFZ03-00791-2017
	Date of decision: 25.02.2020

Feeling aggrieved by the trial court's judgment, dismissing the complaint on merits, and acqui5ng the accused/respondent, the complainant had come up before this Court by filing the above-men7oned applica7on for leave to appeal accompanying the appeal.

Counsel for the applicant prays for transfer of appeal to the first Appellate Court in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in “Celes7um Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, decided on 08.04.2025”.

In Celes7um Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, decided on

08.04.2025, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

[7.8] In the case of an offence alleged against an accused under Sec7on 138 of the Act, we are of the view that the complainant is indeed the vic7m owing to the alleged dishonour of a cheque. In the circumstances, the complainant can proceed as per the proviso to Sec7on 372 of the CrPC and he may exercise such an op7on and he need not then elect to proceed under Sec7on 378 of the CrPC.

[8]. The right to prefer an appeal is no doubt a statutory right and the right to prefer an appeal by an accused against a

JYOTI 2025.12.02 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-A-154-2021

2

convic7on is not merely a statutory right but can also be construed to be a fundamental right under Ar7cles 14 and 21 of the Cons7tu7on. If that is so, then the right of a vic7m of an offence to prefer an appeal cannot be equated with the right of the State or the complainant to prefer an appeal. Hence, the statutory rigours for filing of an appeal by the State or by a complainant against an order of acquiFal cannot be read into the proviso to Sec7on 372 of the CrPC so as to restrict the right of a vic7m to file an appeal on the grounds men7oned therein, when none exists.

[10]. As already noted, the proviso to Sec7on 372 of the CrPC was inserted in the statute book only with effect from 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such inser7on must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the vic7m of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Sec7on 372 of the CrPC, irrespec7ve of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the vic7m of an offence is a complainant, he can s7ll proceed under the proviso to Sec7on 372 and need not advert to sub-sec7on (4) of Sec7on 378 of the CrPC.

In BNSS, 2023, S. 413 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, and thus the ra7o of Celes7um Financial shall apply.

However, the complainant should not face the burden of filing an appeal again before the Sessions Court because the law has been interpreted recently. Therefore, in the interest of Equity, Jus7ce, and Fair play, it would be appropriate to refer this maFer to the Sessions Court, where it will be registered as an Appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023, as applicable. If there is any objec7on regarding whether it is an appeal under the CrPC or BNSS, it shall be registered under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, because the CrPC, 1973, has been repealed.

Given above, the Registry is to send this file along with the Lower Court’s Record, if any, to the concerned Sessions Division.

Leave to appeal is disposed of in the terms men7oned above. All pending applica7on(s), if any, stand closed.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

01.12.2025 Jyo�-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No .

JYOTI 2025.12.02 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.