Chap Singh Vs Babita — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Chap Singh Vs Babita — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Leave-to-appeal application (filed under S.378(4) Cr.P.C.) disposed of with direction to the learned Sessions Judge, Jind, to treat it as an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and entrust it to an appropriate Court to be decided on merits expeditiously, without adherence to any delay aspect; Registry directed to transmit the order and complete paper-book, and return the Trial Court record if received, to the learned Sessions Judge, Jind; pending miscellaneous applications stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the complainant in a case instituted upon a private complaint is a 'victim' who can maintain an appeal against an order of acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 413 of BNSS, 2023), so as to govern the present leave-to-appeal application.

Court's answer

In view of the Apex Court's mandate in Celestium Financial and the consistent views of this Court in M/s Associated Road Carriers Limited and Satish Kumar, there exists no ground to take a different view: the complainant-victim's appeal against acquittal in the complaint case is maintainable under Section 372 Cr.P.C.

Ratio / Principle

The application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. is disposed of by directing the learned Sessions Judge, Jind, to treat the present leave to appeal as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to any appropriate Court to try; the concerned Court shall decide the appeal on merits as per law, as expeditiously as possible.

Key takeaways

Since similar directions are being passed in a number of cases, the concerned Appellate Court need not adhere to the delay aspect, if any, for the purpose of considering the issue raised in the appeal and its disposal on merit.ratio¶¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRM-A-2281-MA-2017 (O&M) — Chap Singh v. Smt. Babita — High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Sanjay Vashisth, J.), July 17, 2025. Applicant-complainant sought leave to appeal against the acquittal dated 06.09.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jind, in Complaint No. 139 of 2016 under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Following the Supreme Court's mandate in M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran etc. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320) — that a complainant in a case instituted on a private complaint is a 'victim' entitled to appeal against acquittal under the proviso to S.372 Cr.P.C. (corresponding S.413 BNSS 2023) — and the consistent views of this Court in M/s Associated Road Carriers Limited v. Manjit Singh (CRM-A-885-MA-2013) and of a Co-ordinate Bench in Satish Kumar v. Jugal Kishor (CRM-A-2700-MA-2018), the Court held there existed no ground to take a different view. The application under S.378(4) Cr.P.C. was disposed of with directions to the learned Sessions Judge, Jind, to treat the leave to appeal as an appeal under S.372 Cr.P.C., entrust it to an appropriate Court, and have it decided on merits expeditiously; the Appellate Court was directed that it need not adhere to any delay aspect. Registry to transmit the order and paper-book to the Sessions Judge, Jind. Whether reportable: No.

CRM-A-2281-MA-2017 (O&M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

252

CRM-A-2281-MA-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 17, 2025

Chap Singh

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

Smt. Babita

.....Non-applicant(s)/Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present: Ms. Parbeen Kumari Dharwal, Advocate, for Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate, for the applicant.

Ms. Deepsikha, Advocate, for Mr. Sandeep Goyat, Advocate, for the respondent.

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

Applicant – Chap Singh has filed the present application seeking grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 06.09.2017, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jind, in Complaint case bearing No. 139 of 2016, instituted on 13.05.2016, under Section(s) 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, titled as ‘Chap Singh v. Smt. Babita’, whereby the complaint filed by the applicant(s) herein has been dismissed by acquitting the accused.

Shorn off the factual matrix of the present case, it is suffice to notice that in the recent mandate of law laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court, in the case of M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran etc. [Criminal Appeal Nos. 1868-70 of 2025, decided on 08.04.2025, reported as 2025 (3) RCR (Criminal) 208 : Law Finder Doc Id # 2737710 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320] , their Lordships’ have answered the issue in affirmative that whether an appeal would be maintainable under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 413 of BNSS, 2023), against an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon a private complaint, by treating the

PRASHANT KAPOOR 2025.07.19 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

CRM-A-2281-MA-2017 (O&M) 2

complainant in such a proceeding as a ‘victim’ within the meaning ascribed to the term under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.-C.

After encapsulating in detail the provisions of Sections 2(d), (n) & (wa), 24, 200, 372, 377, 378, 386 of the Cr.P.C.; Sections 138, 139, 141, 142, 143 and 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; and the earlier view point of the Hon’ble Supreme Court taken in the case of Mallikarjun Kodagali (dead) represented through Legal representative v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752 , an ongoing debate whether the right of the victim to file an appeal against acquittal in a complaint case would fall under Section 372 or Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., has been put to rest. Succinctly, in Celestium Financial’s case (supra) it has been held that the ‘victim’ has a right to file an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions.

It is apposite to mention here that the judgment in the case of Celestium Financial (supra) has been followed and relied upon by this Court in the case of M/s Associated Road Carriers Limited v. Manjit Singh and others (CRM-A-885-MA-2013, decided on 07.07.2025) as well as by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Satish Kumar v. Jugal Kishor (CRM-A-2700-MA-2018, decided on 02.07.2025) .

Having gone through the recent mandate of Hon’ble the Apex Court in Celestium Financial’s case (supra) , and the view taken by this Court in the case of M/s Associated Road Carriers Limited (supra) as well as by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Satish Kumar (supra), there exists no ground to take a different view in the present case.

Accordingly, the present application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. is disposed of by directing the learned Sessions Judge, Jind, to treat the present leave to appeal as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to any appropriate Court to try the same. The concerned Court shall decide the appeal on merits as per law, as expeditiously as possible.

PRASHANT KAPOOR 2025.07.19 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

CRM-A-2281-MA-2017 (O&M)

3

Since similar directions are being passed by this Court in number of cases, the concerned Appellate Court need not to adhere to the delay aspect, if any, involved in the case, for the purpose of considering the issue raised in the appeal and its disposal on merit.

The Registry is directed to transmit this order alongwith copy of the complete paper-book of this case, as also return the record of the Trial Court, if received, to the learned Sessions Judge, Jind, forthwith.

Disposed of accordingly.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands

disposed of.

( SANJAY VASHISTH ) JUDGE

July 17, 2025 Pkapoor Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No

PRASHANT KAPOOR 2025.07.19 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement