Savita Vs Satish Rathi — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Savita Vs Satish Rathi — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

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

Issue for consideration

Whether the ratio in Celestum Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran — that a victim-complainant in an offence under Section 138 of the Act may prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without electing Section 378(4) CrPC — applies under BNSS, 2023, given that S. 413 BNSS, 2023 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973. +1 more

Court's answer

Since S. 413 BNSS, 2023 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, the ratio of Celestum Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran shall apply — i.e., the victim-complainant's appeal route under the proviso to S. 372 CrPC carries over to the BNSS, 2023 regime.

Ratio / Principle

Because the law on the point has been interpreted only recently, the complainant should not be made to face the burden of filing an appeal afresh before the Sessions Court.

Key takeaways

In the interest of equity, justice and fair play, the matter is referred to the Sessions Court, where it will be registered as an Appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023, as applicable.ratio¶5
If there is any objection on whether the appeal is 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the CrPC or the BNSS, it shall be registered under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, because the CrPC, 1973, has been repealed.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Savita (applicant/complainant) v. Sa'sh Rathi (respondent/accused), CRM-A-1834-MA-2016 (O&M), High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, decided 09.12.2025 by Justice Anoop Chitkara (single judge; reportable: No). Aggrieved by the trial court's judgment in Complaint No. 222 of 2014 (decided 29.07.2016) dismissing her complaint on merits and acquitting the accused, the complainant had filed an application for leave to appeal with an accompanying appeal before this Court. Counsel prayed for transfer of the appeal to the first Appellate Court in view of the Supreme Court's judgment in Celestum Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208 (decided 08.04.2025), passages of which are reproduced in the judgment — including that a victim-complainant of a Section 138 offence may proceed under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without electing Section 378(4) CrPC, and that the victim's right to appeal under that proviso exists irrespective of complainant status. Holding S. 413 BNSS, 2023 analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, the Court held the Celestum Financial ratio applicable; and, since the law was interpreted only recently, held that the complainant should not bear the burden of filing an appeal afresh. Exercising equity, justice and fair play, 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 the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023 (the CrPC, 1973 having been repealed). The Registry was directed to send the file, with the Trial Court's Record if any, to the concerned Sessions Division. Leave to appeal disposed of; all pending applications closed.