Disposed¶36

Surender Kumar Aggarwal v. Abhishek Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Sept 2025CRM-A/701/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

P&H HC CRM-A-701-2019 (01.09.2025, Rajesh Bhardwaj J): Section 378(4) CrPC leave to appeal against Section 138 NI Act acquittal treated as appeal under Section 372 CrPC per Celestium Financial (2025) 3 RCR (Crim) 208 and DRI v. Raj Kumar Arora (SC, 17.04.2025); victim's right to appeal; disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Leave-to-appeal application treated as an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and entrusted to the appropriate Court for disposal on merits; Registry directed to send the complete paperbook and record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge concerned forthwith; pending applications, if any, disposed of. ¶36

Surender Kumar Aggarwal Vs Abhishek Singh — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant's application for leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. to appeal against acquittal in a Section 138 NI Act complaint should be treated as an appeal filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C. in light of the victim's right to appeal recognised by the Supreme Court.

¶34

Court's answer

Per the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial, the victim of an offence under Section 138 NI Act has a right to file an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions; accordingly, insistence on special leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. is not required of the applicant.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

In view of Celestium Financial and Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, the learned Sessions Judge concerned is directed to treat the present leave to appeal as an appeal filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to the appropriate Court for its disposal on merits.

¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Surender Kumar Aggarwal v. Abhishek Singh, CRM-A-701-2019 (Punjab & Haryana High Court, decided 01.09.2025, Rajesh Bhardwaj J., oral). The applicant sought leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. to appeal against the acquittal dated 07.12.2018 of the respondent-accused by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Faridabad in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Relying on M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208 (Supreme Court), where it was concluded that the victim of a Section 138 offence has a right to file an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions, and on Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora (Supreme Court, decided 17.04.2025) on the retrospective operation of law declared by a judgment, the Court directed the learned Sessions Judge concerned to treat the leave-to-appeal application as an appeal filed 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 paperbook and record to the learned Sessions Judge forthwith. Application disposed of accordingly.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

142 CRM-A-701-2019 Date of Decision: 01.09.2025

¶3

SURENDER KUMAR AGGARWAL

..... Applicant

VERSUS

ABHISHEK SINGH

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

¶9

Present: Mr. Dharamvir Singh, Advocate for Mr. Deepender Singh, Advocate for the applicant.

¶10

None for the respondent.

¶11

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (Oral)

¶12

The applicant has filed the present application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to file an appeal against the impugned order dated 07.12.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Faridabad whereby, the trial Court has acquitted the respondent-accused in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’).

¶13

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 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. Relevant para of the said judgment is as under:-

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2025.09.02 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-A-701-2019

¶18

¶19

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

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2025.09.02 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CRM-A-701-2019

¶26

¶27

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. 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.”

¶28

Further, applying the doctrine of prospective overruling, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs. Raj Kumar Arora in Criminal Appeal No. 1319 Of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 272 of 2014 decided on 17.04.2025, while clarifying that judgments shall be applicable retrospectively, has held as under:-

¶29

“91. The declaration of a statute dealing with substantive rights, by the legislature, is considered to be prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation. The legal maxim "Nova Constitutio Futuris Forman Imponere Debet, Non Praeteritis" indicating that a new law ought to regulate what is to follow and not the past, carries with it a presumption of prospectivity and this presumption is generally said to operate unless the contrary is shown by an express provision in the statute or if the retrospectivity is otherwise discernible through necessary implication. This is because such statutes would have the consequence of affecting vested rights, impose new burdens or impair existing obligations. However, when a decision rendering an opinion as regards the interpretation of a penal provision is subsequently overruled by the decision of a larger bench, the consequence of the overruling is starkly different and by default, retrospective. This is because it is settled law that the law declared by this Court is retrospective and is normally assumed to be the law from the inception .

¶30

HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2025.09.02 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

CRM-A-701-2019

¶32

¶33

The operation of a newly enacted statute or rule must not be confused with the effect of a judgment. A judgment or decision which interprets a statute or provision thereof declares the meaning of the statute as it should be construed from the date of its enactment. In other words, the judgment declares what the legislature had said at the time when the law was promulgated and therefore, it has retrospective effect. On the contrary, it is the statute or the rule which is presumed to be prospective unless expressly made retrospective. What follows from the same, is that a decision or judgment enunciating a principle of law is applicable to all cases irrespective of the stage of pendency before different forums since what has been enunciated is the meaning of the law which existed from the inception of the concerned statute or provision. What has been declared to be the law of the land must be held to have always been the law of the land. This conclusion also stems from the rationale that the duty of the court is not to "pronounce a new law but to maintain and expound the old one". (emphasis added) 4. Therefore, in view of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble

¶34

Supreme Court in Celestium Financial (supra) and Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (supra), learned Sessions Judge, concerned, is directed to treat the present leave to appeal as an appeal filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to the appropriate Court for its disposal on merits.

¶35

Registry is directed to send the complete paperbook and the record of the case to learned Sessions Judge, concerned, forthwith.

¶36

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

¶37

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 01.09.2025 JUDGE harpreet Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶38

HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2025.09.02 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Surender Kumar Aggarwal v. Abhishek Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surender Kumar Aggarwal v. Abhishek 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

Ramesh Kumar Vs Manpreet Singh Gill

Jeetan Kaur Vs State of Haryana

Raj Kumar Vs Batra Golden Steps and Anr.

Tarsem Lal Garg Vs Preetpal Kaur

Mandeep Singh Vs Rohit Sharma

Ajit Singh Vs Umaro Singh