Disposed¶¶9

Saroj v. Sushil Kumar and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Nov 2025CRM-A/73/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Victim appeal; proviso to Section 372 CrPC; S. 413 BNSS 2023 analogous to S. 372 CrPC 1973; Celestium Financial ratio applied; complainant-victim need not use Section 378(4) CrPC; appeal registration before Sessions Court; CrPC 1973 repealed; referral to concerned Sessions Division; leave to appeal disposed; CRM-A-73-2021 (O&M); Anoop Chitkara J; 18.11.2025; reasoned: Yes; reportable: No.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal disposed; matter referred to the concerned Sessions Division for registration as an appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023 (or, if objection, the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023), with the Registry to send the file and the Trial Court's Record, if any; pending applications, if any, disposed of. ¶¶9

Saroj Vs Sushil Kumar and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether S. 413 of the BNSS, 2023 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, so that the ratio of Celestium Financial governs the victim's right to prefer an appeal. +2 more

¶¶6

Court's answer

S. 413 of the BNSS, 2023 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, and accordingly the ratio of Celestium Financial shall apply.

¶¶6

Ratio / Principle

The complainant should not face the burden of filing an appeal again before the Sessions Court; in the interest of Equity, Justice, and Fair play the matter is referred to the Sessions Court to be registered as an Appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023, as applicable.

¶¶7

Key takeaways

If there is any objection regarding whether the appeal is under the CrPC or the BNSS, it shall be registered under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, because the CrPC, 1973, has been repealed.ratio¶¶7
The Registry is to send this file, along with the Trial Court's Record, if any, to the concerned Sessions Division.ratio¶¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Disposal of leave to appeal in CRM-A-73-2021 (O&M) by Anoop Chitkara, Judge (18.11.2025; speaking/reasoned: Yes; reportable: No). Holding S. 413 BNSS, 2023 analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, the court applied the ratio of 'Celestium Financial'. On the reproduced discussion relied upon (passage bearing internal marker '[10]'), a victim's right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC is not subject to the statutory rigours applicable to appeals by the State or a complainant against acquittal, and a victim who is himself the complainant may proceed under the proviso to Section 372 without advertence to sub-section (4) of Section 378 CrPC. So that the complainant is not burdened with filing the appeal afresh, the matter was referred to the Sessions Court for registration as an Appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023; any objection between CrPC and BNSS registration to be resolved in favour of the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, the CrPC, 1973 having been repealed. Registry directed to send the file, with the Trial Court's Record if any, to the concerned Sessions Division. Leave to appeal disposed; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

¶1

ARCHANA ARORA 2025.11.19 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶2

CRM-A-73-2021 (O&M)

¶3

¶4

accused against a conviction is not merely a statutory right but can also be construed to be a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. If that is so, then the right of a victim of an offence to prefer an appeal cannot be equated with the right of the State or the complainant to prefer an appeal. Hence, the statutory rigours for filing of an appeal by the State or by a complainant against an order of acquittal cannot be read into the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC so as to restrict the right of a victim to file an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein, when none exists.

¶5

[10]. As already noted, the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC was inserted in the statute book only with effect from 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such insertion must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the victim of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the victim of an offence is a complainant, he can still proceed under the proviso to Section 372 and need not advert to sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the CrPC.

¶6

In BNSS, 2023, S. 413 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, and thus the ratio of Celestium Financial shall apply.

¶7

However, the complainant should not face the burden of filing an appeal again before the Sessions Court because the law has been interpreted recently. Therefore, in the interest of Equity, Justice, and Fair play, it would be appropriate to refer this matter to the Sessions Court, where it will be registered as an Appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023, as applicable. If there is any objection regarding whether it is an appeal under the CrPC or BNSS, it shall be registered under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, because the CrPC, 1973, has been repealed.

¶8