Disposed¶29

Lakhvir Singh v. Kuldip Kaur

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Nov 2025CRM-A/846/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-A-846-MA-2015; Anoop Chitkara J.; Punjab & Haryana High Court; leave to appeal against acquittal; JMIC Ludhiana; Complaint COMA/39477/2013; Celestum Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208; victim's appeal; complainant; proviso to S. 372 CrPC; S. 378(4) CrPC; S. 413 BNSS 2023; repeal of CrPC 1973; transfer of appeal to Sessions Court; Equity Justice Fair Play.

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to appeal disposed of; matter referred to the concerned Sessions Division for registration as an Appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/S. 413 BNSS, 2023 (to be registered under BNSS if contested); Registry to send the file with the Lower Court's Record, if any; all pending applications closed. ¶29

Lakhvir Singh Vs Kuldip Kaur — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal arising from the complainant's application for leave to appeal (against acquittal of the accused) should be transferred to, and registered before, the first Appellate Court (Sessions Court) as an appeal under the proviso to S. 372 CrPC / S. 413 BNSS, 2023, rather than proceeding as an ordinary leave appeal. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

Since the relevant law has been interpreted recently, the complainant should not face the burden of filing the appeal afresh; 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.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

S. 413 BNSS, 2023 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, and therefore the ratio of Celestum Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (per which a complainant-victim may proceed under the proviso to S. 372 CrPC instead of electing S. 378 CrPC) shall apply.

¶26

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the CrPC or the BNSS, it shall be registered under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, because the CrPC, 1973 has been repealed.ratio¶27
The Registry is directed to send the file, along with the Lower Court's Record (if any), to the concerned Sessions Division.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Misc. Application CRM-A-846-MA-2015 (Punjab & Haryana HC, decided 19.11.2025, Anoop Chitkara J.): Arising out of acquittal of the accused by the JMIC, Ludhiana (Complaint COMA/39477/2013; decision dated 30.01.2015) after remand, the complainant had applied for leave to appeal. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Celestum Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208 — that a complainant-victim may appeal under the proviso to S. 372 CrPC without recourse to S. 378 CrPC — and holding that S. 413 BNSS, 2023 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, the Court disposed of the leave application and referred the matter to the Sessions Court for registration as an Appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/S. 413 BNSS, 2023; any objection as to CrPC versus BNSS to be resolved in favour of the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, the CrPC, 1973 having been repealed. Registry directed to forward the file with the Lower Court's Record, if any.

¶1

CRM-A-846-MA-2015

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

201

¶5

CRM-A-846-MA-2015 Date of Decision: 19.11.2025

LAKHVIR SINGH

......Applicant

Versus

KULDIP KAUR ......Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶11

Present: Mr. Akhil Kashyap, Advocate for Mr. P.K. Kataria, Advocate for the applicant.

¶12

¶13

ANOOP CHITKARA J.

¶14

Criminal No. 921/2 of 18.07.2005 Complaint COMA/39477/2013 Date of decision: 30.01.2015

¶15

Ini.ally, the accused was convicted and he filed an appeal before the Sessions Court which was remanded back to the learned JMIC, Ludhiana. A5er that the trial Court acqui7ed the accused against which the complainant had come up before this Court by filing the above-men.oned applica.on for leave to appeal accompanying the appeal.

¶16

Counsel for the applicant prays for transfer of appeal to the first Appellate Court in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in “Celes.um Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, decided on 08.04.2025”.

¶17

In Celes.um Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, decided on

¶18

08.04.2025, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

¶19

[7.8] In the case of an offence alleged against an accused under Sec.on 138 of the Act, we are of the view that the complainant is indeed the vic.m owing to the alleged dishonour of a cheque. In the circumstances, the complainant can proceed as per the proviso to Sec.on 372 of the CrPC and he may exercise such an op.on and he need not then elect to proceed under Sec.on 378 of the CrPC.

¶20

[8]. The right to prefer an appeal is no doubt a statutory right and the right to prefer an appeal by an accused against a convic.on is not merely a statutory right but can also be construed to be a fundamental right under Ar.cles 14 and 21 of the Cons.tu.on. If that is so, then the right of a vic.m of an offence to prefer an appeal cannot be equated with the right of

¶21

JYOTI 2025.11.20 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶22

CRM-A-846-MA-2015

¶23

¶24

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 acqui7al cannot be read into the proviso to Sec.on 372 of the CrPC so as to restrict the right of a vic.m to file an appeal on the grounds men.oned therein, when none exists.

¶25

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

¶26

In BNSS, 2023, S. 413 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, and thus the ra.o of Celes.um Financial shall apply.

¶27

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, Jus.ce, and Fair play, it would be appropriate to refer this ma7er 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 objec.on 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.

¶28

Given above, the Registry is to send this file along with the Lower Court’s Record, if any, to the concerned Sessions Division.

¶29

Leave to appeal is disposed of in the terms men.oned above. All pending applica.on(s), if any, stand closed.

¶30

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 19.11.2025 Jyo�-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No .

¶31

JYOTI 2025.11.20 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Lakhvir Singh v. Kuldip Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhvir Singh v. Kuldip Kaur

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

Harjinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Saroj Vs Sushil Kumar and Ors.

Kunal Kataria Vs Nawal Singh

Narinder Pal Vs Shiv Kumar and Anr.

Municipal Council Dhuri Vs Jaspal Singh

Nsic Ltd. Vs Jaspal Singh and Anr.