Disposed¶7

Chandan Singh v. Anita

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Nov 2025CRM-A/485/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of complainant's appeal against acquittal in Section 138 NI Act cheque-dishonour complaint; complainant as 'victim' under Section 2(wa) CrPC; appeal permissible under proviso to Section 372 CrPC without special leave under Section 378(4), following M/s Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804; leave application remanded to Sessions Judge, Faridabad; delay of 559 days condoned; High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Justice Aaradhna Sawhney, decided 13.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 559 days condoned (CRM-14130-2024); leave-to-appeal application remanded to the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad to be treated as an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C.; Registry directed to transmit the order with paper-book and return the trial Court record; pending applications disposed of. ¶7

Chandan Singh Vs Anita — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

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.

¶2

Court's answer

Following the authoritative ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial, a complainant in a 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.

¶4

Ratio / Principle

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

Key takeaways

Adopting a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach, this Court directed that the present appeal be treated as one authoritatively instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.ratio¶5
In view of Celestium Financial (supra), the application seeking leave to appeal is remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad with a direction to treat the same as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.; the Sessions Judge may retain the appeal or assign it to some other Court of competent jurisdiction.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh (Aaradhna Sawhney, J.), CRM-A-485-2024 (O&M), decided 13.11.2025. The appellant sought leave to appeal against a judgment of acquittal dated 02.07.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad in a complaint dated 04.09.2017 under Section 138 of the NI Act; delay of 559 days in filing was condoned. Limited question: whether an appeal against acquittal in a S.138 NI Act complaint case lies at the instance of the complainant under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. Held, relying on M/s Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804, that such a complainant is a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. and is entitled to appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. without special leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.; the application was remanded to the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad to be treated as an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C.; disposed of accordingly.

¶1

CRM-A-485-2024 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

260

¶5

CRM-A-485-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.11.2025

¶6

Chandan Singh ...Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Anita ...Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY

¶10

Present : Ms. Tavleen Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

¶12

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J.(ORAL)

¶13

CRM-14130-2024

¶14

Application is for condonation of delay of 559 days in filing the

¶15

appeal.

¶16

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same stands allowed and delay of 559 days in filing the appeal is condoned .

¶17

Main Case

¶18

The applicant has filed the present application seeking grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 02.07.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, in a case stemming from complaint dated 04.09.2017 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter ‘NI Act’)

¶19

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?

¶20

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

¶21

HAMANT 2025.11.14 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CRM-A-485-2024 (O&M)

¶23

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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, Faridabad 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.

¶27

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.

¶28

7. Disposed of accordingly.

¶29

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

¶30

(AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE

¶31

13.11.2025 Hemant

¶32

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

¶33

HAMANT 2025.11.14 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Chandan Singh v. Anita

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Singh v. Anita

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

Bikramdeep Singh @ Bikramjit Singh @ Vicky Vs State of Punjab

Baldev Singh Vs Gurmeet Singh

Raghbir Singh Vs Ujjal Singh

Shriram Transport Finance Compamny Ltd. Vs Rakesh Kumar

Bhagat Preet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Munit Kumar Vs State of Punjab