Disposed

Ram Chander v. Ramdhari and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Nov 2025CRM-A/548/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Complainant sought leave to appeal against acquittal in a cheque dishonour case. Following the Supreme Court's ruling that a complainant may appeal as a victim under the proviso to S. 372 CrPC (analogously S. 413 BNSS), the High Court referred the matter to the Sessions Court for registration as such an appeal and disposed of the leave application.

What did the court decide?

Matter referred to Sessions Court to be registered as appeal under proviso to S. 372 CrPC/S. 413 BNSS; pending applications closed.

Ram Chander Vs Ramdhari and Others — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

CRM-A-548-2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

243

¶5

CRM-A-548-2024 Date of Decision: 18.11.2025

RAM CHANDER

......Applicant

Versus

RAMDHARI AND OTHERS ......Respondents

¶10

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

¶11

Present: Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate and

¶12

Mr. Dhri� Dhall, Advocate for the appellant.

¶13

¶14

ANOOP CHITKARA J.

¶15

Criminal	No. RBT-12 of 2013/2019
Complaint	CIS No. COMI-794-2013
	CNR No.: HRJRA10003442013
	Date of decision: 12.01.2024

¶16

Feeling aggrieved by the trial court's judgment, dismissing the complaint on merits, and acqui8ng the accused/respondent, the complainant had come up before this Court by filing the above-men�oned applica�on 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 “Celes�um Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, decided on 08.04.2025”.

¶18

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

¶19

08.04.2025, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

¶20

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

¶21

[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 convic�on is not merely a statutory right but can also be construed to be a fundamental right under Ar�cles 14 and 21 of

¶22

JYOTI 2025.11.20 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶23

CRM-A-548-2024

¶24

¶25

the Cons�tu�on. If that is so, then the right of a vic�m 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 acquiGal cannot be read into the proviso to Sec�on 372 of the CrPC so as to restrict the right of a vic�m to file an appeal on the grounds men�oned therein, when none exists.

¶26

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

¶27

In BNSS, 2023, S. 413 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, and thus the ra�o of Celes�um Financial shall apply.

¶28

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, Jus�ce, and Fair play, it would be appropriate to refer this maGer 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 objec�on 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.

¶29

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

¶30

Leave to appeal is disposed of in the terms men�oned above. All pending applica�on(s), if any, stand closed.

¶31

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE (SUKHVINDER KAUR) 18.11.2025 JUDGE Jyo�-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No .

¶32

JYOTI 2025.11.20 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Ram Chander v. Ramdhari and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Chander v. Ramdhari and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Haryana Vs Raja and Ors.

Gyan Parkash Vs Anil Bhatia and Another

Parminder Singh Vs Kulbir Kaur and Others

Nirmal Singh @ Kaka Vs State of Haryana and Others

Raghvir Singh Vs State of Punjab through Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab Jail Department, Punja

Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Limited Vs Rajpal and Another