Kuldeep Kumar Vs Anil Garg and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Kuldeep Kumar Vs Anil Garg and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Leave to appeal disposed of in the terms mentioned above: matter referred to the Sessions Court for registration as an appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023 (under the BNSS proviso if any objection regarding CrPC or BNSS, the CrPC 1973 having been repealed); Registry to send the file with the Trial Court's record, if any, to the concerned Sessions Division; all pending application(s), if any, stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant-complainant's appeal against acquittal should be transferred to the first Appellate Court (Sessions Court) and registered as an appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC / S. 413 BNSS, 2023, in view of Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the law has been interpreted recently, the complainant should not face the burden of filing an appeal again; 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; if there is any objection 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under the CrPC or BNSS, it shall be registered under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, because the CrPC, 1973, has been repealed.

Ratio / Principle

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

Key takeaways

The Registry is directed to send this file, along with the Trial Court's Record, if any, to the concerned Sessions Division.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal — Leave to appeal against acquittal — Complainant's remedy after Celestium Financial — Applicant (complainant) aggrieved by trial court judgment dismissing his complaint on merits and acquitting the accused sought transfer of his 2016 leave-to-appeal matter to the first Appellate Court relying on Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208 (SC, 08.04.2025), wherein the Supreme Court held that a complainant alleging an offence under Section 138 (dishonour of cheque) is a victim who may proceed under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without electing Section 378 CrPC. Held: S. 413 BNSS, 2023 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, and the ratio of Celestium Financial shall apply; the complainant should not bear the burden of filing the appeal afresh; in the interest of Equity, Justice and Fair play the matter is referred to the Sessions Court for registration as an Appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023, as applicable, and if there is any objection whether CrPC or BNSS, it shall be registered under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, the CrPC, 1973 having been repealed; Registry to send the file with the Trial Court's record, if any, to the concerned Sessions Division. Leave to appeal disposed of accordingly; pending applications closed. Coram: Anoop Chitkara J. (author) with H.S. Grewal J.; decided 13.11.2025; speaking/reasoned: Yes; reportable: No.

CRM-A-860- M A-2016 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

101+220

CRM-A-860-MA-2016(O&M) Date of Decision: 13.11.2025

Kuldeep Ku m ar

......Applicant

Versus

Anil Garg an d Another

......Respondents

CORAM: H ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOO P CHITKARA H ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. G R EWAL

Present: M r. Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate f or the appellant. M r. Sukhdeep Singh, Advocate f or respondent No.1

ANOOP CHI T KARA J.

Case No. 868/2013 Date of decision: 14.01.2016

Feeling aggrieved by the trial court's judg m ent, dismissing the complaint o n merits, and a cquitting the accused/respondents, the complainant had come u p before this Court by filing the above-mention e d application for leave to appea l accompanyin g the appeal.

Counsel for the applicant prays for trans f er of appeal to the first Appellat e Court in vie w of judgment of Hon’ble Supr e me Court passed in “Celestiu m Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) R C R(Criminal) 208, decided o n 08.04.2025”.

In Cele s tium Financial v. A. Gnanaseka r an, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208 , decided on 0 8 .04.2025, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, [7. 8 ] In the case of an offence alleg e d against an accused un d er Section 138 of the Act, we ar e of the view that the co m plainant is indeed the victim o wing to the alleged dishonour of a cheque. In the circumstances, the

GURPREET 2025.11.15 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

CRM-A-860- M A-2016 (O&M)

co m plainant can proceed as per the p roviso to Section 372 of the CrPC and he may exercise s u ch an option and he ne e d not then elect to proceed und e r Section 378 of the Cr P C.

[8]. The right to prefer an appeal i s no doubt a statutory rig h t and the right to prefer an appeal by an accused against a c onviction is not merely a statutor y right but can also be co n strued to be a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. If that is s o , then the right of a vi c tim of an offence to prefer an ap p eal cannot be equated wi t h the right of the State or the co m plainant to prefer an ap p eal. Hence, the statutory rigours f or filing of an appeal by the State or by a complainant against an order of ac q uittal cannot be read into the pro v iso to Section 372 of th e CrPC so as to restrict the right of a victim to file an ap p eal on the grounds mentioned therein, when none ex i sts.

[1 0 ]. As already noted, the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr P C was inserted in the statute boo k only with effect from 31 . 12.2009. The object and reason f o r such insertion must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In vi e w of the aforesaid discussion, we h old that the victim of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the pr o viso to Section 372 of the CrPC, i r respective of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if t h e victim of an offence is a complainant, he can still procee d under the proviso to Se c tion 372 and need not advert t o sub-section (4) of Se c tion 378 of the CrPC.

Counsel for the respondent No.1 submit s that he has no objection to th e request made by the counsel for the appellant.

In BNS S , 2023, S. 413 is analogous to S. 3 72 CrPC, 1973, and thus the rati o of Celestium F inancial shall apply.

Howeve r , the complainant should not fa c e the burden of filing an appea l again before the Sessions Court because the l aw has been interpreted recently . Therefore, in the interest of Equity, Justice, an d Fair play, it would be appropriat e to refer this m atter to the Sessions Court, wher e it will be registered as an Appea l under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2 023, as applicable. If there is an y objection reg a rding whether it is an appeal un d er the CrPC or BNSS, it shall b e registered un d er the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2 023, because the CrPC, 1973, ha s been repeale d .

GURPREET 2025.11.15 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

CRM-A-860- M A-2016 (O&M)

Given a b ove, the Registry is to send thi s file along with the Trial Court’ s Record, if an y , to the concerned Sessions Divisi o n.

Leave to appeal is disposed of in the te r ms mentioned above. All pendin g application(s), if any, stand closed.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE (H.S. GREWAL) JUDGE 13.11.2025 Gurpreet Whether spea k ing/reasoned: Yes Whether repo r table: No .

GURPREET 2025.11.15 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.