Disposed¶32

Jaswinder Singh v. Gurlabh Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Nov 2025CRM-A/248/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: appeal by complainant/victim against acquittal; cheque dishonour; Section 138; proviso to Section 372 CrPC; Section 378(4) CrPC avoided; Section 413 BNSS 2023 as analogue; Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208 applied; transfer of appeal from High Court to Sessions Court; CrPC 1973 repealed; BNSS registration; condonation of 33 days' delay; Punjab & Haryana High Court; Justice Anoop Chitkara; 26.11.2025; CRM-A-248-2024 (O&M).

What did the court decide?

Matter referred to the concerned Sessions Division to be registered as an appeal under the proviso to S. 372 CrPC / S. 413 BNSS, 2023; Registry directed to send the file with the Lower Court's Record to the concerned Sessions Division; delay of 33 days in filing condoned; all pending applications disposed of. ¶32

Jaswinder Singh Vs Gurlabh Singh — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the complainant's appeal against acquittal should be transferred to the first appellate court (Sessions Court) and registered as an appeal under the proviso to S. 372 CrPC / S. 413 BNSS, 2023, instead of being pursued before the High Court. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

Because the relevant law was only recently interpreted, the complainant should not be burdened with filing the appeal afresh; the matter was referred to the Sessions Court for registration as an appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023, as applicable.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Delay of 33 days in filing the appeal was condoned and application CRM-7949-2024 was allowed.

¶16

Key takeaways

Section 413 of BNSS, 2023 is analogous to Section 372 of CrPC, 1973; accordingly the ratio of Celestium Financial (a complainant/victim may appeal under the proviso to S. 372 CrPC without electing S. 378) applies to this case.ratio¶29
If there is any objection as to whether the appeal is under the CrPC or the BNSS, it shall be registered under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, because the CrPC, 1973 has been repealed.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Anoop Chitkara J., 26.11.2025) — CRM-A-248-2024 (O&M): Complainant's criminal appeal against acquittal dated 06.11.2023 in a cheque-dishonour complaint (CIS No. NACT-175-2018). Applying Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208 (SC), the Court held that S. 413 BNSS, 2023 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, and that the Celestium ratio — a complainant/victim may prefer an appeal under the proviso to S. 372 CrPC without electing S. 378 CrPC — applies. To spare the complainant a re-filing burden, the matter was referred to the Sessions Court for registration as an appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023; any objection between CrPC and BNSS to be resolved in favour of BNSS, the CrPC 1973 having been repealed. Delay of 33 days condoned (CRM-7949-2024); leave to appeal disposed; reasoned but not marked reportable.

¶1

CRM-A-248-2024 (O&M)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

204

¶4

CRM-A-248-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.11.2025

Jaswinder Singh

......Appellant

Versus

Gurlabh Singh ......Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶10

Present: Ms. Divya Narula, Advocate for the appellant (through V.C.).

¶11

¶12

ANOOP CHITKARA J.

¶13

CRM-7949-2024

¶14

For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 33 days in filing the

¶15

appeal is condoned.

¶16

Application stands allowed.

¶17

Main case

¶18

Criminal	CIS No. NACT-175-2018 titled	“Jaswinder Singh v/s Gurlabh Singh”
Complaint	decided on 06.11.2023
	CNR No. HRS1B1-000446-2018

¶19

Feeling aggrieved by the trial court's judgment, dismissing the complaint on merits, and acquitting the accused/respondent, the complainant had come up before this Court by filing the above-mentioned appeal.

¶20

Counsel for the appellant prays for transfer of appeal to the first Appellate Court in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in “Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, decided on 08.04.2025”.

¶21

In Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, decided on 08.04.2025, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

¶22

[7.8] In the case of an offence alleged against an accused under Section 138 of the Act, we are of the view that the complainant is indeed the victim owing to the alleged dishonour of a cheque. In the circumstances, the complainant can proceed as per the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC and he may exercise such an option and he need not then elect to proceed under Section 378 of the CrPC.

¶23

[8]. The right to prefer an appeal is no doubt a statutory right and the

¶24

¶25

JYOTI SHARMA 2025.11.29 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh

¶26

CRM-A-248-2024 (O&M)

¶27

right to prefer an appeal by an accused against a conviction is not merely a statutory right but can also be construed to be a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. If that is so, then the right of a victim of an offence to prefer an appeal cannot be equated with the right of the State or the complainant to prefer an appeal. Hence, the statutory rigours for filing of an appeal by the State or by a complainant against an order of acquittal cannot be read into the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC so as to restrict the right of a victim to file an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein, when none exists.

¶28

[10]. As already noted, the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC was inserted in the statute book only with effect from 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such insertion must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the victim of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the victim of an offence is a complainant, he can still proceed under the proviso to Section 372 and need not advert to sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the CrPC.

¶29

In BNSS, 2023, S. 413 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, and thus the ratio of Celestium Financial shall apply.

¶30

However, the complainant should not face the burden of filing an appeal again before the Sessions Court because the law has been interpreted recently. Therefore, in the interest of Equity, Justice, and Fair play, it would be appropriate to refer this matter to the Sessions Court, where it will be registered as an Appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023, as applicable. If there is any objection regarding whether it is an appeal under the CrPC or BNSS, it shall be registered under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, because the CrPC, 1973, has been repealed.

¶31