Suresh Kumar Vs Harshit

The substantive prayer made in the present appeal reads, thus: “(a) The appeal of the appellant may be allowed and the judgment/order dated 29.10.2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guhla vide which the complaint filed by the appellant has wrongly and illegally dismissed, may kindly be set aside and the respondent/accused be punished under Section 138, 142 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. (b) It is, further prayed that the respondent/accused may also be burdened with penalty to the extent of double of the amount of the cheque.

¶17

(c) Any other relief for which the appellant is found entitled may also be granted, in the interest of justice.

¶18

(d) Filing of certified copy and true typed copies of impugned judgment dated 29.10.2018 may kindly be exempted.”

¶19

Alongwith an appeal, an application for grant of leave has also

¶20

been preferred under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., 1973

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/applicant and have perused the paper-book.

¶22

Before proceeding to decide the application (for grant of special leave to appeal)/appeal, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment

¶23

passed by this Court in CRM-A-826-2025 titled as Raj Kumar vs. JATIN 2025.07.15 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and Rajender : 2025:PHHC:079740 wherein, this Court, while relying upon the integrity of this document

¶24

CRM-A-551-2019

¶25

2

¶26

dicta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. 2025 INSC 804 : 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208, has held that an appeal against an order of acquittal in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 preferred by the complainant, falls squarely within the purview of proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C./413 of BNSS, 2023. This judicial enunciation was predicated upon the interpretative understanding that, for the purposes of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complainant is encompassed within the expansive definition of ‘ victim ’ as delineated in the Cr.P.C., 1973/BNSS, 2023. Consequently, the complainant is not constrained to pursue the more stringent procedure of seeking special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., 1973/419(4) of BNSS, 2023. This Court underscored that the scope and ambit of proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C./413 BNSS are inherently broader and more accommodating when juxtaposed with the comparatively narrower confines of Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., 1973/419(4) of BNSS, 2023, which mandates the procurement of special leave from the High Court for an appeal against an acquittal in a complaint case.

¶27

However, demonstrating a profound commitment to the overarching principles of justice and a determination to preclude mere procedural technicalities from eclipsing the substantive adjudication of the case, this Court, instead of summarily dismissing the appeal on this technical infirmity, judiciously opted to relegate the appeal, along with accompanying application(s), to the concerned Sessions Court.

¶28

Ergo; in view of the dicta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial (supra) as also the pronouncement of this Court in Raj

¶29

JATIN 2025.07.15 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CRM-A-551-2019

¶31

3

¶32

Kumar (supra); the present appeal, along with accompanying application(s), is disposed of as hereunder:

¶33

(i) The present appeal, along with accompanying application(s), is remitted to the learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal with a direction to treat the same as having been filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C., 1973/Section 413 of BNSS, 2023. The said learned Sessions Judge may entrust the appeal to himself or assign it to another Court of competent jurisdiction for its disposal, as per law.

¶34

(ii) Needless to clarify that this Court has not delved into the merits of the appeal as also along with accompanying application(s); and the same is left open for consideration of the concerned learned Sessions Court, which shall indubitably adjudicate the same without getting influenced by any observation made hereinabove.

¶35

(iii). The Registry is directed to send, expeditiously, the complete records of the present appeal (including the paper-book) to the said learned Sessions Judge.

¶36

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE

¶37

July 15, 2025 jatin

¶38

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

¶39

JATIN 2025.07.15 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Suresh Kumar v. Harshit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar v. Harshit

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

Sandeep Goswami Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Gurnek Singh Vs Jagir Singh & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs Vijay Kumar

Sohan Lal Vs Dharamvir

Surja Ram Since Deceased through Lrs Pawan Kumar Vs Molu Ram

Mamta Industries Vs Anurag Singh