Disposed¶34

Parminder Singh v. Kulbir Kaur and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Nov 2025CRM-A/436/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Victim's right of appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC and Section 413 BNSS 2023; complainant as victim in Section 138 cheque-dishonour case; appeal against acquittal by complainant; leave to appeal; condonation of 50-day delay; referral/transfer of appeal to Sessions Court; Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208 (SC); Punjab & Haryana High Court; CRM-A-436-2024(O&M).

What did the court decide?

Matter referred to the Sessions Court for registration as an Appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/S. 413 BNSS, 2023 (and under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023 if there is objection as between CrPC and BNSS); Registry directed to send the file with the Trial Court's record, if any, to the concerned Sessions Division; pending applications, if any, stand closed. ¶34

Parminder Singh Vs Kulbir Kaur and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 50 days in filing the accompanying appeal (CRM-A-436-2024) should be condoned. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

Delay of 50 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned; the application (CRM-13792-2024) is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

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

¶29

Key takeaways

Because the law has been interpreted recently, the complainant should not face the burden of filing an appeal again before the Sessions Court; therefore, in the interest of Equity, Justice and Fair play, the matter is referred to the Sessions Court, to be registered as an Appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/S. 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under the CrPC or BNSS, it shall be registered under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, because the CrPC, 1973, has been repealed.ratio¶34
The Registry is to send this file, along with the Trial Court's record, if any, to the concerned Sessions Division; all pending application(s), if any, stand closed.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court, CRM-A-436-2024(O&M), decided 17.11.2025 (coram: Anoop Chitkara & Sukhvinder Kaur; judgment authored by Anoop Chitkara J.). Complainant-applicant Parminder Singh, aggrieved by the trial court's judgment dated 28.11.2023 in Complaint Case No. COMI/255/2015 (CNR No. PBAS030016862007) acquitting Kulbir Kaur & Ors., had approached the Court with an appeal accompanied by an application for leave to appeal; delay of 50 days in filing was condoned (CRM-13792-2024). Counsel prayed for transfer of the appeal to the first Appellate Court in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, decided 08.04.2025; the order reproduces passages of that judgment stating that in a Section 138 cheque-dishonour case the complainant is the victim and may proceed under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without electing Section 378, and that a victim has the right to appeal under that proviso irrespective of whether he is a complainant. Observing that S. 413 BNSS 2023 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC 1973 and that the ratio of Celestium shall apply, and desiring that the complainant not face the burden of filing an appeal again, the Court referred the matter to the Sessions Court for registration as an Appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/S. 413 BNSS 2023 (under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS 2023 if objection, CrPC 1973 having been repealed); the Registry was directed to send the file with the trial court record to the concerned Sessions Division and pending applications stand closed. Speaking/reasoned: Yes; Reportable: No.

¶1

�

¶2

CRM-A-436-2024(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

243

¶5

CRM-A-436-2024(O&M) Date of Decision: 17.11.2025

¶6

Parminder Singh ......Applicant

¶7

Verus

¶8

Kulbir Kaur & Ors. ......Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR

¶10

Present: Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.

¶11

¶12

ANOOP CHITKARA J.

¶13

Criminal	CNR No.PBAS030016862007
Complaint	Case No.COMI/255/2015
	Date of decision: 28.11.2023

¶14

CRM-13792-2024

¶15

Present application has been filed for condonation of delay of 50 days in filing the accompanying appeal.

¶16

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

¶17

Delay of 50 days in filing the accompanying appeal, is condoned.

¶18

CRM-A-436-2024

¶19

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

¶20

Counsel for the applicant prays for transfer of appeal to the first Appellate Court in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in “Celestium �

¶21

JYOTI 2025.11.18 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

�

¶23

CRM-A-436-2024(O&M)

¶24

Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, decided on 08.04.2025”.

¶25

�� !��" �#$��%�&�� ' ��

¶26

[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.

¶27

[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 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 ��shall apply.

¶30

However, the complainant should not face the burden of filing an appeal �

¶31

JYOTI 2025.11.18 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

�

¶33

CRM-A-436-2024(O&M)

¶34

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.

¶35

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

¶36

�� � (��'�� $ ��. All pending application(s), if any, stand closed.

¶37

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE ( SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE 17.11.2025 jyoti3 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶38

�

¶39

JYOTI 2025.11.18 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Parminder Singh v. Kulbir Kaur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parminder Singh v. Kulbir Kaur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohinder Singh Vs Birbal Singh Nambardar and Ors.

Kuldeep Kumar Vs Anil Garg and Anr.

State of Haryana Vs Raja and Ors.

Gyan Parkash Vs Anil Bhatia and Another

State of Punjab Vs Jugraj Singh and Another