Disposed¶27

Mohkam Singh v. Sandeep Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Dec 2025CRM-A/1989/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mohkam Singh v. Sandeep Kumar; CRM-A-1989-MA-2015; Punjab & Haryana High Court; Anoop Chitkara J.; decision dated 11.12.2025; cheque dishonour; Section 138 NI Act; acquittal of accused; complaint dismissed on merits; leave to appeal; transfer to Sessions Court / first Appellate Court; proviso to Section 372 CrPC; Section 378(4) CrPC; Section 413 BNSS 2023; Articles 14 and 21 Constitution; victim's right to appeal; Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208; CrPC repealed by BNSS; speaking: yes; reportable: no.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of with direction to the Registry to send the file, along with the Trial Court's record, to the concerned Sessions Division for registration as an appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC / Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023; all pending applications stand closed.

Mohkam Singh Vs Sandeep Kumar — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the Supreme Court's ruling in Celestium Financial, the complainant-applicant's challenge to his acquittal should be transferred to and registered before the Sessions Court as an appeal under the proviso to S. 372 CrPC / S. 413 BNSS, 2023, instead of proceeding as a leave-to-appeal matter before the High Court.

¶26

Court's answer

In BNSS, 2023, S. 413 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, and therefore the ratio of the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial (permitting the victim-complainant to proceed by way of an appeal under the proviso to S. 372 CrPC rather than under S. 378(4) CrPC) applies.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Since the law has been recently interpreted, the complainant should not bear the burden of filing the appeal afresh; in the interest of Equity, Justice and Fair play, the matter is referred to the Sessions Court for registration as an Appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC / S. 413 BNSS, 2023, and if any objection is raised as to whether it falls 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the CrPC or the BNSS, it shall be registered under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, because the CrPC, 1973 has been repealed.

¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal leave-to-appeal (CRM-A) by complainant against acquittal in a S.138 NI Act cheque-dishonour complaint: Applying the Supreme Court's ruling in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, the Court holds that S.413 BNSS, 2023 is analogous to S.372 CrPC, 1973, and that the victim-complainant may pursue the matter as an appeal under the Proviso to S.372 CrPC / S.413 BNSS, 2023 rather than under S.378(4) CrPC. To spare the complainant the burden of fresh litigation following the recent interpretation of law, the matter was referred to the Sessions Court for registration as such an appeal; on any objection regarding the governing Code, registration was directed under the Proviso to S.413 BNSS, 2023, the CrPC, 1973 having been repealed. Registry directed to transmit the file with the Trial Court's record to the concerned Sessions Division; pending applications closed. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes; Whether reportable: No.

¶1

��

¶2

CRM-A-1989-MA-2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

202

¶5

CRM-A-1989-MA-2015 Date of Decision: 11.12.2025

¶6

Mohkam Singh ......Applicant

¶7

Verus

¶8

Sandeep Kumar ......Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶10

Present: Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate for the applicant.

¶11

¶12

ANOOP CHITKARA J.

¶13

Criminal NI Act/421/2014 Complaint Complaint No.446 dated 18.10.2014 Date of decision: 25.09.2015

¶14

Feeling aggrieved by the trial court's judgment, dismissing the complaint on merits, and acquitting the accused/respondent, 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

�� !��" �#$��%�&�� ' ��

¶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

¶18

��

¶19

ANJU RANI 2025.12.11 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶20

��

¶21

CRM-A-1989-MA-2015

¶22

of the CrPC and he may exercise such an option and he need not then elect to proceed under Section 378 of the CrPC.

¶23

[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 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.

¶24

[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 sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the CrPC.

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27