Disposed¶29

Fgr Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Spm Auto Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Nov 2025CRM-A/458/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cheque dishonour complaint acquittal; appeal by complainant/victim under proviso to S. 372 CrPC and S. 413 BNSS, 2023 instead of S. 378(4) CrPC; reliance on Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208; transfer/referral of pending leave-to-appeal application to Sessions Court; CrPC 1973 repealed, BNSS 2023 governs; Punjab & Haryana High Court, Anoop Chitkara J., decision dated 13.11.2025; CRM-A-458-2021; FGR Logistics Pvt Ltd v. M/s SPM Auto Pvt Ltd; reportable: No.

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to appeal disposed of by referring the matter to the concerned Sessions Division; Registry directed to send the file along with the Lower Court's Record, if any; appeal to be registered under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023; all pending applications closed. ¶29

Fgr Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Spm Auto Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether, following the ratio of Celestium Financial, the complainant's challenge to the acquittal proceeds under the proviso to S. 372 CrPC / S. 413 BNSS, 2023 rather than S. 378(4) CrPC. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

S. 413 of BNSS, 2023 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, and therefore the ratio of Celestium Financial (whereby the complainant/victim may proceed under the proviso to S. 372 rather than S. 378(4)) shall apply.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The complainant should not face the burden of filing the appeal again before the Sessions Court merely because the law has recently been interpreted; in the interest of Equity, Justice, and Fair play, the matter is referred to the Sessions Court for registration as an Appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023, as applicable.

¶27

Key takeaways

If there is any objection as to whether the appeal falls 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the CrPC or the BNSS, it shall be registered under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, because the CrPC, 1973, has been repealed.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Anoop Chitkara, J., 13.11.2025): In CRM-A-458-2021, an application for leave to appeal by complainant FGR Logistics Pvt Ltd against the trial court's dismissal of its complaint and acquittal of M/s SPM Auto Pvt Ltd (complaint case RBT-695 of 2017, decided 20.02.2020) was disposed of by referring the matter to the Sessions Court. Relying on Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (SC, 08.04.2025), the Court held that S. 413 BNSS, 2023 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, so the Celestium ratio applies; the complainant was spared the burden of refiling, and the matter is to be registered as an appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023, with any CrPC-vs-BNSS objection resolved in favour of the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023 since the CrPC, 1973, stands repealed. Registry directed to transmit the file with the Lower Court's Record; pending applications closed.

¶1

CRM-A-458-2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

204-7

¶5

CRM-A-458-2021 Date of Decision: 13.11.2025

¶6

FGR LOGISTICS PVT LTD

¶7

......Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/S SPM AUTO PVT LTD AND ANR

¶10

......Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶12

Present: None for the applicant.

¶13

¶14

ANOOP CHITKARA J.

¶15

Criminal No. RBT-695 of 2017 Complaint CIS No. NACT/3830/2017 CNR No.: HRFB03-018001-2017 Date of decision: 20.02.2020

¶16

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 application for leave to appeal accompanying the appeal.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

[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.

¶20

[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

¶21

JYOTI 2025.11.14 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶22

CRM-A-458-2021

¶23

¶24

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.

¶25

[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.

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

¶31

13.11.2025 Jyoti-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No .

¶32

JYOTI 2025.11.14 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Fgr Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Spm Auto Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fgr Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Spm Auto Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

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

Amit Tanwar Vs State of Haryana

Kanwal Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sukhdeep Singh Vs Pooja Sharma

Vijay Pal Vs Shiv Ganga and Company and Another

Fgr Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Spm Auto Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Fgr Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Spm Auto Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.