Disposed¶33

Ajmer Kundu (Deceased) through Lrs v. Pardeep Sharma

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Jul 2025CRM-A/481/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab and Haryana High Court; CRM-A-481-2022 (O&M); Justice Harpreet Singh Brar; Section 378(4) CrPC leave to appeal; acquittal; Section 372 CrPC victim's right to appeal; Section 138 NI Act cheque dishonour; Insufficient Funds; legal representatives of deceased complainant; Celestium Financial 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208; Satish Kumar vs. Jugal Kishor CRM-A-2700-MA-2018; Sessions Judge Jind; decision dated 02.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of: leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC treated as an appeal under Section 372 CrPC and entrusted to the appropriate Court under the learned Sessions Judge, Jind; Registry directed to send the complete paperbook and record to the Sessions Judge, Jind forthwith; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ¶33

Ajmer Kundu (Deceased) through Lrs Vs Pardeep Sharma — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the applicant (legal representatives of the deceased complainant) under Section 378(4) CrPC against the judgment of acquittal dated 26.02.2020 passed in the Section 138 NI Act complaint. +1 more

¶11

Ratio / Principle

In view of the judgment in Celestium Financial (supra) and this Court in Satish Kumar vs. Jugal Kishor (CRM-A-2700-MA-2018, decided 02.07.2025), the learned Sessions Judge, Jind is directed to treat the present leave to appeal as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to the appropriate Court for its disposal.

¶31

Key takeaways

The Registry is directed to send the complete paperbook and the record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Jind forthwith.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRM-A-481-2022 (O&M) — Application under S.378(4) CrPC for leave to appeal by the legal representatives of deceased complainant Ajmer Kundu against the acquittal (26.02.2020, SDJM Safidon) of respondent Pardeep Sharma in a S.138 NI Act cheque-dishonour case (cheque No. 033360 dated 31.08.2017 for Rs. 1,20,000/-, dishonoured 'Insufficient Funds'). Relying on M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208 (SC) and Satish Kumar v. Jugal Kishor (CRM-A-2700-MA-2018, decided 02.07.2025), Harpreet Singh Brar J. (oral) directed the learned Sessions Judge, Jind to treat the leave-to-appeal as an appeal under S.372 CrPC and entrust it to the appropriate Court for disposal; Registry directed to send the complete paperbook and record to the Sessions Judge, Jind forthwith; application and pending miscellaneous applications disposed of accordingly (02.07.2025).

¶1

226 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM-A-481-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.07.2025

¶3

AJMER KUNDU (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS …Applicant

¶4

V/S

¶5

PARDEEP SHARMA …Respondent

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

¶7

Present: Mr. Monu Sharma, Advocate for

¶8

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate for the applicant.

¶9

¶10

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

¶11

The present application has been preferred under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CR.P.C.’) seeking grant of leave to appeal the judgment of acquittal dated 26.02.2020 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Safidon in a case stemming from complaint dated 12.10.2017 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘NI Act’).

¶12

Tersely put, the facts of the case are that the respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- from the applicant in cash on 16.08.2017. In order to discharge his liability, the respondent issued a cheque bearing No. 033360 dated 31.08.2017 for the amount of Rs. 1,20,000/-, drawn on State Bank of India, Railway Road Safidon. However, on presentation for encashment, the same was dishonoured vide memo dated 04.09.2017 with the remarks- ‘Insufficient Funds’ . Consequently, the applicant-appellant served a legal notice dated 12.09.2017 upon the respondent. Since the respondent failed to make the requisite payment in the stipulated time, complaint(supra) was filed against him. After assessing all the material available on the record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent vide judgment dated

¶13

26.02.2020.

¶14

AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.07.03 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

-2-

¶16

CRM-A-481-2022 (O&M)

¶17

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A.

¶18

Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208 , after considerable discussion and comparative interpretation of Sections 372 and 378(4) of Cr.P.C., concluded that the victim has a right to file an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions. Speaking through Justice B.V. Nagarathna, the following was held:

¶19

“7.12 The reasons for the above distinction are not far to see and can be elaborated as follows:

¶20

Firstly, the victim of a crime must have an absolute right to prefer an appeal which cannot be circumscribed by any condition precedent. In the instant case, a victim under Section 138 of the Act, i.e., a payee or the holder of a cheque is a person who has suffered the impact of the offence committed by a person who is charged of the offence, namely, the accused, whose cheque has been dishonoured.

¶21

Secondly, the right of a victim of a crime must be placed on par with the right of an accused who has suffered a conviction, who, as a matter of right can prefer an appeal under Section 374 of the CrPC. A person convicted of a crime has the right to prefer an appeal under Section 374 as a matter of right and not being subjected to any conditions. Similarly, a victim of a crime, whatever be the nature of the crime, unconditionally must have a right to prefer an appeal.

¶22

Thirdly, it is for this reason that the Parliament thought it fit to insert the proviso to sub-section 372 without mandating any condition precedent to be fulfilled by the victim of an offence, which expression also includes the legal representatives of a deceased victim who can prefer an appeal.

¶23

On the contrary, as against an order of acquittal, the State, through the Public Prosecutor can prefer an appeal even if the complainant does not prefer such an appeal, though of course such an appeal is with the leave of the court . However, it is not always necessary for the State or a complainant to prefer an appeal. But when it comes to a victim's right to prefer an appeal, the insistence on seeking special leave to appeal from the High Court under Section 378(4) of the CrPC would be contrary to what has been intended by the Parliament by insertion of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC.

¶24

Fourthly, the Parliament has not amended Section 378 to circumscribe the victim's right to prefer an appeal just as it has with regard to a complainant or the State filing an appeal. On the other hand, the Parliament has inserted the proviso to Section 372 so as to envisage a superior right for the victim of an offence to prefer an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein as compared to a complainant.

¶25

Fifthly, the involvement of the State in respect of an offence under Section 138 of the Act is conspicuous by its absence. This is because the complaint filed under that provision is in the nature of a private

¶26

AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.07.03 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CRM-A-481-2022 (O&M)

¶28

-3-

¶29

complaint as per Section 200 of the CrPC and Section 143 of the Act by an express intention incorporates the provisions of the CrPC in the matter of trial of such a deemed offence tried as a criminal offence. Therefore, the complainant, who is the victim of a dishonour of cheque must be construed to be victim in terms of the proviso to Section 372 read with the definition of victim under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC.”

¶30

In view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

¶31

in Celestium Financial (supra) and this Court in Satish Kumar vs. Jugal Kishor in CRM-A-2700-MA-2018 decided on 02.07.2025 , the learned Sessions Judge, Jind is directed to treat the present leave to appeal as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to appropriate Court for its disposal.

¶32

5 . The Registry is directed to send the complete paperbook and the record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Jind forthwith.

¶33

6 . Disposed of accordingly. 7 . Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed

¶34

of.

¶35

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) 02.07.2025 JUDGE Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶36

AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.07.03 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ajmer Kundu (Deceased) through Lrs v. Pardeep Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajmer Kundu (Deceased) through Lrs v. Pardeep Sharma

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

Piara Singh and Ors. Vs State of Pb.

Abinu D and Another Vs State of Haryana

Ranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Harjinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Gurdial Singh & Anr. Vs Amarjit Kaur & Ors.

Om Parkash Virmani Vs State of Haryana and Anr.