Disposed¶7

The Lehragaga Primary Co-Operative Agriculture Development Bank Limited v. Manjit Kaur

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Nov 2025CRM-A/2307/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Leave to appeal against acquittal; Section 138 NI Act cheque dishonour complaint; complainant as 'victim' under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C.; appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. without special leave under Section 378(4); Celestium Financial 2025 INSC 804 followed; application remanded to Sessions Judge, Sangrur; procedural rules must serve, not obstruct, justice; Punjab & Haryana High Court.

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to appeal remanded to the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur with direction to treat it as an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C.; Registry directed to transmit the order with the complete paper-book and return the trial Court record to the learned Sessions Judge concerned; pending applications disposed of. ¶7

The Lehragaga Primary Co-Operative Agriculture… — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether an appeal against an order of acquittal passed in a complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act can be entertained under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. at the instance of the complainant.

¶2

Court's answer

Adopting a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach, guided by the principle that procedural rules must serve and not obstruct the course of justice, the Court directed that the present appeal be treated as one authoritatively instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.

¶4

Ratio / Principle

In view of the Supreme Court's judgment in Celestium Financial (supra), the application seeking leave to appeal was remanded to the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur with a direction to treat it as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.; the Sessions Judge may retain the appeal on his/her Board or assign it to some other Court of competent jurisdiction.

¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Bench: Justice Aaradhna Sawhney) disposed of CRM-A-2307-MA-2018 (O&M) on 17.11.2025. The appellant-bank (The Lehragaga Primary Co-Operative Agriculture Development Bank Ltd) had applied for leave to appeal against a judgment of acquittal dated 01.08.2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moonak, Sangrur in a complaint dated 28.09.2017 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Holding the question 'no longer res integra', the Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804), under which a Section 138 NI Act complainant qualifies as a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. and may appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. without special leave under Section 378(4). Treating the appeal as instituted under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., the Court remanded the leave application to the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur with liberty to retain it on his/her Board or assign it to a Court of competent jurisdiction; the Registry was directed to transmit the order with the complete paper-book and return the trial Court record. Disposed of accordingly; pending applications also disposed of.

¶1

CRM-A-2307-MA-2018 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

246

¶5

CRM-A-2307-MA-2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.11.2025

¶6

The Lehragaga Primary Co-Operative Agriculture Development Bank Ltd

¶7

...Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Manjit Kaur ...Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY

¶11

Present : Mr. Akshay Bansal, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

¶13

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J.(ORAL)

¶14

The applicant has filed the present application seeking grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 01.08.2018 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moonak, Sangrur in a case stemming from complaint dated 28.09.2017 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter ‘NI Act’).

¶15

2. The limited question arising for consideration in the present proceedings is whether an appeal against an order of acquittal passed in a complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act can be entertained under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. at the instance of the complainant?

¶16

3. The issue is no longer res integra. In ‘M/s Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. 2025 INSC 804: 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208’ , the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that a complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act, qualifies as a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C., being the person who suffers financial loss due to the dishonour of a cheque. Consequently, such a complainant is entitled to pursue an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., without the requirement of seeking special leave under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C.

¶17

4. Adopting a pragmatic and justice oriented approach and guided

¶18

HAMANT 2025.11.19 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CRM-A-2307-MA-2018 (O&M)

¶20

¶21

by the principle that procedural rule must serve and not obstruct the course of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct that the present appeal be treated as one authoritatively instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.

¶22

5. Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Celestium Financial (supra) , the present application seeking leave to appeal is remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur with a direction to treat the same as appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge may retain the said appeal on his/her Board or assign it to some other Court of competent jurisdiction.

¶23

6. The Registry is directed to transmit this order along with copy of the complete paper-book and return the trial Court record, if received, to the learned Sessions Judge, concerned.

¶24

7. Disposed of accordingly.

¶25

8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶26

	(AARADHN JU	A SAWHNEY) DGE
17.11.2025
Hemant
	Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes	/ No
	Whether reportable : Yes	/ No

¶27

HAMANT 2025.11.19 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

The Lehragaga Primary Co-Operative Agriculture Development Bank Limited v. Manjit Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Lehragaga Primary Co-Operative Agriculture Development Bank Limited v. Manjit Kaur

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

Rahul Alias Kalu and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Rajat Vs State of Punjab

Arvind Vs State of Haryana

Jarnail Singh Vs State of Punjab

Asha Sharma Vs Shyam Sunder Sharma

Jolly Vs Pandit Ramesh Kumar