Remanded¶31

Amandeep Sekhri v. Jitan Vig

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Jul 2025CRM-A/578/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 138 NI Act complaint; appeal against acquittal by complainant as 'victim'; proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. 1973 / Section 413 BNSS 2023 versus special leave Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. / 419(4) BNSS; remittal to Sessions Judge Jalandhar; M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. 2025 INSC 804 : 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208; Raj Kumar vs. Rajender 2025:PHHC:079740 (CRM-A-826-2025); CRM-A-578-MA-2017; Punjab & Haryana High Court; Sumeet Goel J.; 11.07.2025; Amandeep Sekhri; Jitan Vig.

What did the court decide?

Appeal and accompanying applications remitted to the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, to be treated as filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C., 1973/Section 413 BNSS, 2023; merits expressly left open; Registry directed to send complete records expeditiously. ¶31

Amandeep Sekhri Vs Jitan Vig — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether an appeal by the complainant against an order of acquittal in a proceeding under Section 138 NI Act — filed with a special-leave application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. — properly falls within the purview of proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C./Section 413 BNSS (complainant as 'victim'), obviating the special-leave route under Section 378(4)/419(4). +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

Acting on the Supreme Court dicta in M/s Celestium Financial and this Court's pronouncement in Raj Kumar, the Court disposed of the present appeal and its accompanying applications by remittal rather than dismissal on the technical infirmity of the Section 378(4) leave application.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The present appeal, with accompanying applications, is remitted to the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, with direction to treat it as having been filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C., 1973/Section 413 BNSS, 2023; the Sessions Judge may entrust the appeal to himself or assign it to another Court of competent jurisdiction for disposal as per law.

¶31

Key takeaways

This Court expressly did not delve into the merits of the appeal or the accompanying applications, leaving them open for consideration and adjudication by the concerned learned Sessions Court without influence from any observation made herein.ratio¶32
The Registry is directed to send, expeditiously, the complete records of the present appeal (including the paper-book) to the said learned Sessions Judge.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

P&H HC (Sumeet Goel, J., oral) — CRM-A-578-MA-2017, decided 11.07.2025: Complainant's appeal against acquittal in a Section 138 NI Act case, filed with a special-leave application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., 1973, was not dismissed for that technical infirmity. Acting on the Supreme Court dicta in M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. (2025 INSC 804 : 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208) and this Court's pronouncement in Raj Kumar vs. Rajender (CRM-A-826-2025; 2025:PHHC:079740) — under which a complainant, encompassed within the expansive definition of 'victim' in Cr.P.C., 1973/BNSS, 2023, may appeal against acquittal via proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C./Section 413 BNSS without procuring special leave under Section 378(4)/419(4) — the appeal and accompanying applications were remitted to the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, with direction to treat them as filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C./Section 413 BNSS; the Sessions Judge may hear the appeal himself or assign it to another competent Court; merits expressly left open; Registry directed to transfer the complete records expeditiously.

¶1

CRM-A-578-MA-2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

218

¶5

CRM-A-578-MA-2017

¶6

Date of decision: 11.07.2025

AMANDEEP SEKHRI

....PETITIONER

V/s

JITAN VIG

....RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

¶13

Present: Ms. Ishita Negi, Advocate for Mr. Nimanyu Gautam, Advocate for the appellant.

¶14

Mr. Ashish Nagar, Advocate for the respondent.

¶15

¶16

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

¶17

The substantive prayer made in the present appeal reads, thus:

¶18

“It is therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment may please be ordered to be set aside by way of acceptance of this appeal and the complaint of the appellant may please be ordered to be allowed against the respondent and respondent may please be convicted and sentenced as per provisions of Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, in the interest of justice.”

¶19

Alongwith an appeal, an application for grant of leave has also been preferred under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., 1973.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the paper-book at some length.

¶21

Before proceeding to decide the application (for grant of special leave to appeal)/appeal on merits thereof, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in CRM-A-826-2025 titled as Raj Kumar vs. Rajender : 2025:PHHC:079740 wherein, this Court, while relying upon the dicta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial vs. A.

¶22

JATIN 2025.07.11 16:17 Gnanasekaran Etc. 2025 INSC 804 : 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208, has I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

¶24

CRM-A-578-MA-2017

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

JATIN 2025.07.11 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CRM-A-578-MA-2017

¶30

¶31

(i) The present appeal, along with accompanying application(s), is remitted to the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar 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.

¶32

(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.

¶33

(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.

¶34

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE

¶35

July 11, 2025 jatin

¶36

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

¶37

JATIN 2025.07.11 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Amandeep Sekhri v. Jitan Vig

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amandeep Sekhri v. Jitan Vig

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

Surinder Kaur Vs Harvinderpal Bansal

Pardeep Kumar Vs Jaswinder Singh Cheema

Gagandeep Singh Vs Gurinder Singh

Prince Sharma Vs Rohit Sandwan & Ors.

Poonam Jain Alias Punam Jain Vs Sunil Dhir

Avtar Singh Vs Rawal Singh and Others