Remanded¶34

Gurpreet Kaur v. Sukhwinder Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Sept 2025CRM-A/56/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.; victim's right of appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.; acquittal in Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act cheque dishonour case (Rs.6 lakhs); reliance on Supreme Court ruling in Celestium Financial (2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208); remand to Sessions Judge, Jalandhar for treatment as Section 372 appeal; Punjab & Haryana High Court; Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.; decision dated 01.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Application remanded to the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar to be treated as an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C.; Registry directed to send the complete paper-book and record to the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar forthwith; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of. ¶34

Gurpreet Kaur Vs Sukhwinder Singh — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

How should the applicant-complainant's challenge to the acquittal under Section 138 NI Act proceed — by way of special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., or as an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court in light of Celestium Financial?

¶12

Court's answer

In view of the Supreme Court's decision in Celestium Financial, the present application seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. is remanded to the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar with a direction to treat it as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust it to the appropriate Court for disposal on merits.

¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (CRM-A-56-2024, decided 01.09.2025, Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.): Applicant sought leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against her acquittal-related judgment dated 17.11.2023 of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jalandhar in a Section 138 NI Act complaint concerning a dishonoured cheque of Rs.6 lakhs. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208 (holding that a victim, including a payee/holder of a dishonoured cheque, has an unconditional right of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Session, and that insistence on special leave under Section 378(4) would be contrary to Parliament's intent), the High Court remanded the application to the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar with a direction to treat it as an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and entrust it to the appropriate Court for disposal on merits; the Registry was directed to send the complete paper-book and record forthwith. Disposed of accordingly, along with pending miscellaneous applications.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

269

¶3

CRM-A-56-2024 Date of decision: 01.09.2025

GURPREET KAUR

...Applicant

VERSUS

SUKHWINDER SINGH ...Respondent

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

¶9

Present :- Mr. Jatin Verma, Advocate for the applicant(s).

¶10

¶11

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

¶12

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 against the judgment of acquittal dated 17.11.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Jalandhar in a case stemming from complaint dated 23.02.2016 filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶13

The complaint (supra) was filed on the ground of dishonour of cheque of Rs.6 lakhs. After assessing all the material available on the record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent(s) vide judgment dated 17.11.2023.

¶14

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208 , after considerable discussion and comparative interpretation of Sections 372 and 378(4) of

¶15

VISHAL SHARMA 2025.09.09 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CRM-A-56-2024 -2-

¶17

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:

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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 Cr.P.C. 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.

¶21

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,

¶22

VISHAL SHARMA 2025.09.09 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CRM-A-56-2024

¶24

-3-

¶25

which expression also includes the legal representatives of a deceased victim who can prefer an appeal.

¶26

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 Cr.P.C. would be contrary to what has been intended by the Parliament by insertion of the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.

¶27

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.

¶28

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 complaint as per Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.

¶29

VISHAL SHARMA 2025.09.09 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CRM-A-56-2024

¶31

-4-

¶32

and Section 143 of the Act by an express intention incorporates the provisions of the Cr.P.C. 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 Cr.P.C.”

¶33

Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court

¶34

in Celestium Financial (supra) , the present application seeking leave to appeal is remanded to the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar with a direction to treat the same as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to appropriate Court for its disposal on merits.

¶35

The Registry is directed to send the complete paper-book and the record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar forthwith.

¶36

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

¶37

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) 01.09.2025 JUDGE Vishal Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶38

VISHAL SHARMA 2025.09.09 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Gurpreet Kaur v. Sukhwinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurpreet Kaur v. Sukhwinder Singh

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

M/S Kissan Seed Store and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sudarshan Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sudarshan Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Veer Anand Mor and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Karnail Singh Vs Karnail Singh

M.S Rashmi Fabrics Vs State of Punjab and Others