Raminder Bisley @ Raima Sandhu Vs Jaswinder Kaur — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Raminder Bisley @ Raima Sandhu Vs Jaswinder Kaur — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application seeking leave to appeal ordered to be treated as an appeal instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and remanded to the concerned learned Sessions Judge, who may retain it on his/her Board or assign it to a Court of competent jurisdiction; Registry to transmit the order with the paper-book and return the trial Court record; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of ('Disposed of accordingly', ¶24).

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.

Court's answer

The limited question is settled: the issue is no longer res integra — per Celestium Financial (2025 INSC 804), 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. and 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.

Ratio / Principle

The present appeal/application is directed to be treated as one authoritatively instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.

Key takeaways

The application seeking leave to appeal is remanded back to the concerned learned Sessions Judge with a direction to treat the same as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.; the learned Sessions Judge may retain the said appeal on his/her Board or assign it to some other Court of competent jurisdiction.ratio¶¶22
The Registry is directed to transmit this order along with a copy of the complete paper-book and to return the trial Court record, if received, to the learned Sessions Judge, concerned.ratio¶¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, 02.09.2025, Aaradhna Sawhney, J. (oral) — CRM-A-572-2024: The applicant (Raminder Bisley @ Raima Sandhu) sought leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 07.03.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Zira, in a complaint dated 14.02.2022 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (respondent: Jaswinder Kaur). Limited question considered: whether an appeal against an order of acquittal in a Section 138 NI Act complaint case can be entertained under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. at the instance of the complainant. Held: the issue is no longer res integra — relying on M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804 : 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208, a Section 138 complainant qualifies as a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. and is entitled to appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. without seeking special leave under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the present application was directed to be treated as an appeal authoritatively instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and remanded back to the concerned learned Sessions Judge, who may retain it on his/her Board or assign it to another Court of competent jurisdiction; the Registry was directed to transmit the order with the complete paper-book and return the trial Court record; pending applications stood disposed of.

CRM-A-572-2024

1

240-3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-A-572-2024 Date of Decision: 02.09.2025

Raminder Bisley @ Raima Sandhu

...Applicant

Versus

Jaswinder Kaur

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY

Present: Mr. Lokesh Vohra, Advocate, for the applicant.

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (ORAL)

The applicant has filed the present application seeking grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 07.03.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Zira in a case stemming from complaint dated 14.02.2022 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter ‘NI Act’).

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?

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 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

PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.09.04 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-A-572-2024

2

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.

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.

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 concerned learned Sessions Judge 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.

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.

Disposed of accordingly.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

02.09.2025

(AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE

Parveen kumar

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

PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.09.04 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document