Ram Partap Mittal Vs State of Haryana and Others

The applicant has filed the pre s ent application seeking grant o f leave to ap p eal against the judgment of acq u ittal passed in a complaint cas e instituted u nder Section 138 of the Ne g otiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘NI Act’), whe r eby the complaint filed by th e applicant w a s dismissed and the accused w a s acquitted.

¶12

The limited question arising f or consideration in the presen t proceeding s is whether an appeal against a n order of acquittal passed in a complaint c ase under Section 138 of the N I Act can be entertained unde r the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. at t he instance of the complainant? 3. The issue is no longer re s integra . In ‘M/s Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. 2025 INSC 804: 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208’ , the Hon'ble Supreme C o urt authoritatively held that a complainan t in a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act, qualifies as a

¶13

SANJEEV KUMAR 2025.07.25 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

CRM-A-621-2019 - 2 -

¶15

‘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 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.

¶16

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.

¶17

In view of the authoritative pronouncement in M/s Celestium Financial's case (supra) and the view taken by this Court also in subsequent cases including in Rajat Deep Versus Prince, CRM-A-1320MA-2016 , disposed off on 21.07.2025, the present application is disposed of with a direction that the learned Sessions Judge concerned shall treat the present appeal as an appeal filed under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and assign the same to an appropriate Court for disposal on merits, in accordance with law.

¶18

The concerned Appellate Court shall proceed to decide the appeal expeditiously, without being impeded by any delay in filing the appeal, in view of the legal position now clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

¶19

SANJEEV KUMAR 2025.07.25 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRM-A-621-2019 - 3 -

¶21

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.

¶22

Disposed of accordingly.

¶23

(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE

¶24

July 24, 2025 sanjeev Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶25

SANJEEV KUMAR 2025.07.25 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ram Partap Mittal v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Partap Mittal v. State of Haryana and Others

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

Paras Nath Kushwaha Vs Vishal Gautam

Jagjit Singh Joura Alias Jagjit Singh Jaura Vs Ramesh Kumar Alias Meshi

M/S Vani Feeds Vs M/S Mahaluxmi Poultry Farm and Anr.

Sunder Singh Vs Ramesh Kumar

Tara Chand Mangla Vs Pawan Kumar Goyal

Sandeep Singh Vs Palwinder Singh