Disposed¶22

Sandeep Singh v. Palwinder Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Jul 2025CRM-A/262/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: leave to appeal; acquittal; Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act; complainant as victim; Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C.; proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.; Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.; special leave; cheque dishonour; Celestium Financial 2025 INSC 804; Rajat Deep v. Prince; Punjab and Haryana High Court; CRM-A-262-2023 (O&M); Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul; decision dated 24.07.2025; oral order; application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to appeal disposed of with direction that the appeal be treated as filed under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., assigned to an appropriate Court for disposal on merits, and decided expeditiously without impediment from delay in filing; Registry to transmit the order with the paper-book and return the Trial Court record. ¶22

Sandeep Singh Vs Palwinder Singh — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

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.

¶11

Court's answer

Adopting the authoritative Supreme Court ruling in M/s Celestium Financial (issue no longer res integra), 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 dishonour of a cheque, 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.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The present appeal is to be treated as one authoritatively instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.; the learned Sessions Judge concerned shall so treat it, assign it to an appropriate Court for disposal on merits in accordance with law.

¶15

Key takeaways

The concerned Appellate Court shall decide the appeal expeditiously, and the appeal is not to be impeded by any delay in filing, in view of the legal position now clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court.ratio¶17
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.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Leave-to-appeal application (CRM-A-262-2023 O&M) by complainant Sandeep Singh against the acquittal of the respondent in a complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act. Holding the issue no longer res integra, the Court relies on M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804 : 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208 (SC) and on Rajat Deep v. Prince (CRM-A-1320MA-2016, decided 21.07.2025), and proceeds on the basis that a Section 138 complainant is a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. and may appeal acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. without special leave under Section 378(4). Application disposed of: the Sessions Judge is to treat the appeal as instituted under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., assign it to an appropriate Court for disposal on merits, and the appellate Court is to decide it expeditiously, unhindered by delay in filing; Registry to transmit the order with the complete paper-book and return the Trial Court record.

¶1

283. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM-A-262-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.07.2025

Sandeep Si n gh

.... Applicant

Versus

Palwinder S ingh

.... Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present: Mr. Randhir Singh Manhas, A d vocate, for the applicant.

¶9

¶10

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)

¶11

The applicant has filed the pre s ent application seeking grant o f leave to ap p eal against the judgment of acq u ittal passed in a complaint cas e instituted u nder Section 138 of the Ne g otiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘NI Act’), whe r eby the complaint filed by th e applicant w a s dismissed and the accused w a s acquitted. 2. The limited question arising f or consideration in the presen t proceeding s is whether an appeal against a n order of acquittal passed in a complaint c ase under Section 138 of the N I Act can be entertained unde r the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. at t he instance of the complainant? 3. The issue is no longer re s integra . In ‘M/s Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. 2025 INSC 804: 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208’ , the Hon'ble Supreme C o urt authoritatively held that a complainan t in a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act, qualifies as a

¶12

SANJEEV KUMAR 2025.07.25 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶13

CRM-A-262-2023 (O&M) - 2 -

¶14

‘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.

¶15

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.

¶16

In view of the authoritative pronouncement in M/s Celestium Financial's case (supra) and the view taken by this Court also in subsequent cases including in Rajat Deep Versus Prince, CRM-A-1320MA-2016 , disposed off on 21.07.2025, the present application is disposed of with a direction that the learned Sessions Judge concerned shall treat the present appeal as an appeal filed under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and assign the same to an appropriate Court for disposal on merits, in accordance with law.

¶17

The concerned Appellate Court shall proceed to decide the appeal expeditiously, without being impeded by any delay in filing the appeal, in view of the legal position now clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

¶18