Municipal Council Dhuri Vs Jaspal Singh — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Municipal Council Dhuri Vs Jaspal Singh — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application for leave to appeal disposed of by referring the matter to the Sessions Court for registration as an Appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023 (under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023 if there is any objection regarding CrPC or BNSS); Registry directed to send the file, with the Lower Court's Record, to the concerned Sessions Division; all pending applications closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant-complainant's leave-to-appeal against the trial court's acquittal of the respondent should be transferred to the first Appellate Court (Sessions Court) in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Celestium Financial. +1 more

Court's answer

It would be appropriate to transfer this appeal to the first Appellate Court in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran.

Ratio / Principle

Since in BNSS, 2023, S. 413 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, the ratio of Celestium Financial applies.

Key takeaways

The matter is referred to the Sessions Court, where it will be registered as an Appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023; 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under the CrPC or BNSS, it shall be registered under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, because the CrPC, 1973, has been repealed.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Single-judge order (Anoop Chitkara J., High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, decided 19.11.2025) disposing of the applicant-complainant Municipal Council Dhuri's CRM-A application for leave to appeal against the trial court judgment (date of decision 12.07.2019) that dismissed its cheque-dishonour complaint on merits and acquitted respondent Jaspal Singh. None appeared for the applicant. Acting on the Supreme Court ruling in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran — under which a complainant who is the victim of cheque dishonour may proceed under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without electing Section 378(4) CrPC — the Court held that S. 413 BNSS, 2023 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, so the Celestium Financial ratio applies. In the interest of equity, justice and fair play, the Court referred the matter to the Sessions Court for registration as an Appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023, directing that any objection on CrPC versus BNSS be resolved in favour of registration under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023 since the CrPC, 1973 stands repealed. The Registry was ordered to send the file, with the Lower Court's Record, to the concerned Sessions Division. Leave to appeal disposed of; all pending applications closed; not reportable.

CRM-A-2821-2019

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

205

CRM-A-2821-2019 Date of Decision: 19.11.2025

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL DHURI

......Applicant

Versus

JASPAL SINGH ......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present: None for the applicant.

ANOOP CHITKARA J.

Criminal No. 24/20189 Complaint CIS No. 24/2018 CNR No. PBSGB1-000563-2018 Date of decision: 12.07.2019

Feeling aggrieved by the trial court's judgment, dismissing the complaint on merits, and acqui5ng the accused/respondent, the complainant had come up before this Court by filing the above-men7oned applica7on for leave to appeal accompanying the appeal.

None has appeared on behalf of the applicant. A perusal of present leave to appeal shows that it would be appropriate to transfer this appeal to the first Appellate Court in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in “Celes7um Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, decided on 08.04.2025”.

In Celes7um Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, decided on

08.04.2025, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

[7.8] In the case of an offence alleged against an accused under Sec7on 138 of the Act, we are of the view that the complainant is indeed the vic7m owing to the alleged dishonour of a cheque. In the circumstances, the complainant can proceed as per the proviso to Sec7on 372 of the CrPC and he may exercise such an op7on and he need not then elect to proceed under Sec7on 378 of the CrPC.

[8]. The right to prefer an appeal is no doubt a statutory right and the right to prefer an appeal by an accused against a convic7on is not merely a statutory right but can also be construed to be a fundamental right under Ar7cles 14 and 21 of

JYOTI 2025.11.20 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-A-2821-2019

2

the Cons7tu7on. If that is so, then the right of a vic7m 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 acquiEal cannot be read into the proviso to Sec7on 372 of the CrPC so as to restrict the right of a vic7m to file an appeal on the grounds men7oned therein, when none exists.

[10]. As already noted, the proviso to Sec7on 372 of the CrPC was inserted in the statute book only with effect from 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such inser7on must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the vic7m of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Sec7on 372 of the CrPC, irrespec7ve of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the vic7m of an offence is a complainant, he can s7ll proceed under the proviso to Sec7on 372 and need not advert to sub-sec7on (4) of Sec7on 378 of the CrPC.

In BNSS, 2023, S. 413 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, and thus the ra7o of Celes7um Financial shall apply.

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, Jus7ce, and Fair play, it would be appropriate to refer this maEer 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 objec7on 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.

Given above, the Registry is to send this file along with the Lower Court’s Record, if any, to the concerned Sessions Division.

Leave to appeal is disposed of in the terms men7oned above. All pending applica7on(s), if any, stand closed.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 19.11.2025 Jyo�-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No .

JYOTI 2025.11.20 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.