Sahil Arora v. Yogesh Jairath

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Sept 2025CRM-A/2081/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against acquittal; complainant as 'victim'; proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.; Section 413 BNSS 2023; Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.; Section 419(4) BNSS; special leave to appeal; Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; remittance/relegation to Sessions Court; M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804); Raj Kumar vs. Rajender (2025:PHHC:079740); CRM-A-2081-2019; JMIC Jalandhar; NACT/4642/2016; NACT case; Punjab and Haryana High Court.

What did the court decide?

Appeal and accompanying applications remitted to the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, to be treated as filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C., 1973/Section 413 BNSS, 2023; Sessions Judge may hear the appeal himself or assign it to another competent Court; merits expressly left open; Registry directed to transmit complete records (including paper-book) expeditiously.

Sahil Arora Vs Yogesh Jairath — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the complainant's appeal against acquittal in the complaint case is to be entertained under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C./Section 413 BNSS (the complainant being a 'victim') rather than through the special-leave route under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C./419(4) BNSS, and how the present appeal, filed with a Section 378(4) leave application, is consequently to be disposed of. +1 more

¶¶23

Court's answer

Applying the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial and this Court's pronouncement in Raj Kumar: for a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complainant is encompassed within the definition of 'victim' under Cr.P.C. 1973/BNSS 2023; an appeal against acquittal by the complainant falls within the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C./Section 413 BNSS, and the complainant is not constrained to seek special leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C./419(4) BNSS.

¶¶23

Ratio / Principle

Instead of dismissing the appeal for the technical infirmity, the present appeal and accompanying applications are disposed of by remitting them to the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, with a direction to treat them as filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C., 1973/Section 413 BNSS, 2023; the Sessions Judge may entrust the appeal to himself or assign it to another Court of competent jurisdiction for disposal as per law.

¶¶30

Key takeaways

This Court has not delved into the merits of the appeal or the accompanying applications; the merits are left open for the concerned learned Sessions Court, which shall adjudicate without getting influenced by any observation made herein.ratio¶¶31
The Registry is directed to send, expeditiously, the complete records of the present appeal (including the paper-book) to the said learned Sessions Judge.ratio¶¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal (CRM-A-2081-2019 O&M) by the complainant against the judgment dated 28.02.2019 of the JMIC, Jalandhar in Case No. NACT/4642/2016 ('Sahil Arora Vs. Yogesh Jairath'), filed alongwith a leave application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., 1973. Relying on M/s Celestium Financial (Supreme Court) and this Court's decision in Raj Kumar vs. Rajender, the Court proceeded on the enunciation that the complainant in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act proceeding is a 'victim' under Cr.P.C. 1973/BNSS 2023, so the appeal against acquittal lies under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C./Section 413 BNSS and not through special leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C./419(4) BNSS. Rather than dismissing the appeal for this technical infirmity, the Court disposed of the appeal and its applications by remitting them to the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, to be treated as filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C./Section 413 BNSS, leaving the merits entirely open and directing the Registry to forward the complete records.

¶1

CRM-A-2081-2019 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

221-2 CRM-A-2081-2019 (O&M)

¶5

Date of decision: 05.09.2025

SAHIL ARORA

....APPELLANT

V/s

YOGESH JAIRATH

....RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

¶12

Present: None for the appellant/applicant.

¶13

¶14

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

¶15

The substantive prayer made in the present appeal reads, thus:

¶16

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the above mentioned Criminal Appeal may kindly be allowed as prayed for and Judgment dated 28.02.2019 passed by the Court of Ld. JMIC, Jalandhar in Case No. NACT/4642/2016 titled as 'Sahil Arora Vs. Yogesh Jairath' may kindly be set aside and the respondent be convicted of the charges framed against them in the interest of justice.”

¶17

Alongwith an appeal, an application for grant of leave has also been preferred under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., 1973

¶18

I have perused the paper-book.

¶19

Before proceeding to consider the application (for grant of special leave to appeal)/appeal, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in CRM-A-826-2025 titled as Raj Kumar vs. Rajender : 2025:PHHC:079740 wherein, this Court, while relying upon the dicta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. 2025 INSC 804 : 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208, has held that an appeal against an order of acquittal in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 preferred by the

¶20

JATIN 2025.09.05 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CRM-A-2081-2019 (O&M)

¶22

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

Ergo; in view of the dicta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial (supra) as also the pronouncement of this Court in Raj Kumar (supra); the present appeal, along with accompanying application(s), is disposed of as hereunder:

¶26

(i) The present appeal, along with accompanying application(s), is remitted to the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar with a direction to treat the

¶27

JATIN 2025.09.05 17:09 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

¶28

CRM-A-2081-2019 (O&M)

¶29

¶30

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.

¶31

(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.

¶32

(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

05.09.2025

jatin

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶38

JATIN 2025.09.05 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sahil Arora v. Yogesh Jairath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahil Arora v. Yogesh Jairath

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

Sunita Devi Vs State of Punjab and Others

Amrik Singh Vs State of Punjab

Karandeep Singh Alias Lambar Alias Karan Lambar Vs State of Punjab

Rajbeer Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sat Pal Vs Phoolpati and Anr.

Sahil Arora Vs Yogesh Jairath