Disposed¶27

Dharamjit Kaur v. Gulzar Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Dec 2025CRM-A/1735/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: leave to appeal; acquittal; complainant as victim; proviso to Section 372 CrPC; Section 378(4) CrPC; S. 413 BNSS 2023 analogous to S. 372 CrPC 1973; Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208 (SC); Section 138 of the Act (referenced within quoted passage); transfer/referral to Sessions Division; Criminal Complaint Case No.185 of 2012; Dharamjit Kaur v. Gulzar Singh; High Court of Punjab and Haryana; CRM-A-1735-MA-2018; decision 01.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal disposed in the terms directed: matter referred to the concerned Sessions Division for registration as an appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023 (or, on objection, under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023); Registry to send the file with the Trial Court's record to the Sessions Division; pending applications closed.

Dharamjit Kaur Vs Gulzar Singh — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant-complainant's pending leave-to-appeal challenge to the acquittal should be transferred/referred to the Sessions Court (first appellate court) for registration as an appeal under the proviso to S. 372 CrPC / S. 413 BNSS, 2023, in view of Celestium Financial.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Section 413 of BNSS, 2023 is analogous to Section 372 of the CrPC, 1973, and therefore the ratio of Celestium Financial shall apply to the present case.

¶24

Key takeaways

In the interest of equity, justice and fair play, and so that the complainant does not bear the burden of refiling because the law has been recently interpreted, the matter is referred to the Sessions Court to be registered as an appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023; on any objection whether it is under the CrPC or BNSS, it shall be registered under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, because the CrPC, 1973, has been repealed.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court, CRM-A-1735-MA-2018, decided 01.12.2025 (bench: Anoop Chitkara and Sukhvinder Kaur, JJ.; oral judgment by Sukhvinder Kaur, J.). Applicant-complainant Dharamjit Kaur, aggrieved by the trial court judgment of 08.05.2018 in Criminal Complaint Case No.185 of 2012 dismissing her complaint on merits and acquitting respondent Gulzar Singh, had filed an application for leave to appeal. On counsel's prayer, relying on Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208 (SC, decided 08.04.2025), the Court held that S. 413 BNSS, 2023 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973 and that the Celestium ratio — under which the complainant, being the victim, may proceed under the proviso to S. 372 CrPC without electing S. 378(4) — shall apply. The matter was referred to the Sessions Court for registration as an appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023; on any objection as to CrPC or BNSS, registration was directed under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, as the CrPC, 1973 stands repealed. Leave to appeal was disposed of accordingly; the Registry was directed to send the file with the trial court record to the concerned Sessions Division, and pending applications were closed.

¶1

228 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM-A-1735-MA-2018

¶3

Date of Decision: 01.12.2025

DHARAMJIT KAUR

….Applicant(s)

VERSUS

GULZAR SINGH

….Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR

¶10

Present: Mr. Tarun Vir Singh Lehal for the applicant.

¶11

¶12

SUKHVINDER KAUR, J. (Oral)

¶13

Criminal Complaint Case No.185 of 2012 Complaint Date of decision: 08.05.2018

¶14

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

¶15

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 “Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, decided on 08.04.2025”.

¶16

In Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, decided on 08.04.2025, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

¶17

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

¶18

[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 conviction is not merely a statutory right but can also be construed to be a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. If that is so, then the right of a victim of an offence to prefer an appeal cannot be equated with the right of the State or the complainant to

¶19

SANGEETA 2025.12.03 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

¶21

CRM-A-1735-MA-2018

¶22

prefer an appeal. Hence, the statutory rigours for filing of an appeal by the State or by a complainant against an order of acquittal cannot be read into the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC so as to restrict the right of a victim to file an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein, when none exists.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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, Justice, and Fair play, it would be appropriate to refer this matter 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 objection 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.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

¶29

(SUKHVINDER KAUR) December 01, 2025 JUDGE Sangeeta Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶30

SANGEETA 2025.12.03 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Dharamjit Kaur v. Gulzar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharamjit Kaur v. Gulzar Singh

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

State of Haryana Vs Rohtash Alias Khundki and Another

State of Punjab Vs Harmeet Singh @ Billa

State of Haryana Vs Satbir

Yamin Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Bijender Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Mohanjinder Singh @ Mohan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others