Gulam Mohamad Daar Vs Gurmeet Kaur and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Gulam Mohamad Daar Vs Gurmeet Kaur and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 482 days in filing the appeal condoned (CRM-42996-2018 allowed); leave-to-appeal application remanded to the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar with direction to treat it as an appeal under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.; Registry directed to transmit the order along with copy of the complete paper-book and return the trial Court record, if received, to the learned Sessions Judge concerned; pending applications disposed of.

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.

Court's answer

Guided by the principle that procedural rules must serve and not obstruct justice, and relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804, this Court deemed it appropriate to direct that the present appeal be treated as authoritatively instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., i.e., a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case may appeal against acquittal at the instance of the complainant without special leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.

Ratio / Principle

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

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh (Aaradhna Sawhney, J.), CRM-A-2717-MA-2018(O&M), decided 11.11.2025 — Application for leave to appeal against a judgment of acquittal dated 09.03.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar in a complaint dated 24.09.2013 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Limited question: whether a complainant's appeal against acquittal in a Section 138 NI Act case is entertainable under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. Relying on M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804, the Court held that a Section 138 complainant qualifies as a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. and may pursue an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. without special leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. Delay of 482 days in filing the appeal condoned; the leave application remanded to the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar with direction to treat it as an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C.; Registry directed to transmit the order and paper-book and return trial Court record; disposed of accordingly.

CRM-A-2717-MA-2018(O&M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

237

CRM-A-2717-MA-2018(O&M) Date of decision: 11.11.2025

Gulam Mohamad Daar

...Appellant

Versus

Gurmeet Kaur and another

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY

Present : Mr. D.S. Kahlon, Advocate for Mr. M.K. Kahlon, Advocate for the appellant.

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J.(ORAL)

CRM-42996-2018

Application is for condonation of delay of 482 days in filing the

appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same stands allowed and delay of 482 days in filing the appeal is condoned .

Main Case

The applicant has filed the present application seeking grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 09.03.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, in a case stemming from complaint dated 24.09.2013 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter ‘NI Act’)

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?

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

HAMANT 2025.11.11 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-A-2717-MA-2018(O&M)

2

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.

4. 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.

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, Amritsar 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.

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.

7. Disposed of accordingly.

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

(AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE

11.11.2025 Hemant

Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes / No
Whether reportable	: Yes / No

HAMANT 2025.11.11 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document