Complainant appealed against acquittal in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 NI Act via an application for special leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. Relying on Celestium Financial and Raj Kumar, the High Court held the complainant is a 'victim' entitled to appeal under Section 372 proviso and remitted the appeal to the Sessions Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM-A-9-MA-2017 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
229
CRM-A-9-MA-2017 (O&M)
Date of decision: 14.07.2025
ASHOK KUMAR ....PETITIONER
V/s
VIJAY KUMAR
....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: None for the appellant/applicant.
Mr. J.S. Bhinder, Advocate for the respondent.
SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)
Alongwith an appeal, an application for grant of leave has also been preferred under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., 1973
JATIN 2025.07.14 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-A-9-MA-2017 (O&M)
2
complainant, falls squarely within the purview of proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C./413 of BNSS, 2023. This judicial enunciation was predicated upon the interpretative understanding that, for the purposes of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complainant is encompassed within the expansive definition of ‘ victim ’ as delineated in the Cr.P.C., 1973/BNSS, 2023. Consequently, the complainant is not constrained to pursue the more stringent procedure of seeking special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., 1973/419(4) of BNSS, 2023. This Court underscored that the scope and ambit of proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C./413 BNSS are inherently broader and more accommodating when juxtaposed with the comparatively narrower confines of Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., 1973/419(4) of BNSS, 2023, which mandates the procurement of special leave from the High Court for an appeal against an acquittal in a complaint case.
However, demonstrating a profound commitment to the overarching principles of justice and a determination to preclude mere procedural technicalities from eclipsing the substantive adjudication of the case, this Court, instead of summarily dismissing the appeal on this technical infirmity, judiciously opted to relegate the appeal, along with accompanying application(s), to the concerned Sessions Court.
(i) The present appeal, along with accompanying application(s), is remitted to the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala with a direction to treat the
JATIN 2025.07.14 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and same as having been filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C., 1973/Section 413 of integrity of this document
CRM-A-9-MA-2017 (O&M)
3
BNSS, 2023. The said learned Sessions Judge may entrust the appeal to himself or assign it to another Court of competent jurisdiction for its disposal, as per law.
(ii) Needless to clarify that this Court has not delved into the merits of the appeal as also along with accompanying application(s); and the same is left open for consideration of the concerned learned Sessions Court, which shall indubitably adjudicate the same without getting influenced by any observation made hereinabove.
(iii). The Registry is directed to send, expeditiously, the complete records of the present appeal (including the paper-book) to the said learned Sessions Judge.
(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE
July 14, 2025 jatin
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No
JATIN 2025.07.14 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a complainant's appeal against acquittal under Section 138 NI Act requires special leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. or falls under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Raj Kumar vs. RajenderRelied on¶4
CRM-A-826-2025 : Raj Kumar vs. Rajender : 2025:PHHC:079740
M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. GnanasekaranRelied on¶4
M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. 2025 INSC 804 : 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Ashok Kumar
Vijay Kumar
Sumeet Goel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
