Disposed¶25

Ram Rattan v. Gulshan Jain

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Sept 2025CRM-A/235/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-A-235-2021, Punjab and Haryana High Court, decided 02.09.2025 (Aaradhna Sawhney, J.). Keywords: Section 138 NI Act cheque dishonour; appeal against acquittal by complainant; proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.; complainant as 'victim' under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C.; no special leave required under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.; Celestium Financial 2025 INSC 804 followed; leave to appeal remanded to Sessions Judge; acquittal dated 19.02.2020 by JMIC Sonepat; complaint dated 17.10.2016; Ram Rattan v. Gulshan Jain.

What did the court decide?

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

Ram Rattan Vs Gulshan Jain — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

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?

¶16

Court's answer

Following the Supreme Court's authoritative ruling in Celestium Financial, this Court holds 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. and is entitled to pursue an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., without seeking special leave under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The present application seeking leave to appeal is remanded to the concerned learned Sessions Judge with a direction to treat it as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.; the learned Sessions Judge may retain the appeal on his/her Board or assign it to some other Court of competent jurisdiction.

¶23

Key takeaways

Stated in passing as the guiding approach: procedural rules must serve and not obstruct the course of justice, supporting a pragmatic and justice-oriented treatment of the appeal.obiter¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Aaradhna Sawhney, J.), CRM-A-235-2021, decided 02.09.2025: The applicant-complainant sought leave to appeal against his acquittal-related judgment of acquittal dated 19.02.2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonepat in a Section 138 NI Act complaint. Following the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804 : 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208, the Court held that a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act prosecution is 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) Cr.P.C. The leave application was remanded to the learned Sessions Judge to be treated as an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C., who may retain it or assign it to another competent Court; application disposed of accordingly.

¶1

CRM-A-235-2021

¶2

¶3

239 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-A-235-2021 Date of Decision: 02.09.2025

Ram Rattan

...Applicant

Versus

Gulshan Jain

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY

¶11

Present: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Antil, Advocate, for the applicant.

¶12

Mr. Ajay Kumar Dahiya, Advocate for the respondent.

¶13

¶14

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (ORAL)

¶15

The applicant has filed the present application seeking grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 19.02.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonepat in a case stemming from complaint dated 17.10.2016 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter ‘NI Act’).

¶16

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?

¶17

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

¶18

PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.09.04 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CRM-A-235-2021

¶20

¶21

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.

¶22

Adopting a pragmatic and justice oriented approach and guided 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.

¶23

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 concerned learned Sessions Judge 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.

¶24

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.

¶25