Disposed¶5

Jitender Bhadana v. Liyakat Ali

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Jul 2025CRM-A/860/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-A-860-2019; High Court of Punjab & Haryana; Jitender Bhadana v. Liyakat Ali; Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act 1881; appeal against acquittal by complainant; proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.; Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. victim; Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. special leave; M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran 2025 INSC 804; Rajat Deep v. Prince CRM-A-1320-MA-2016; leave to appeal application disposed; expeditious appellate disposal ignoring filing delay.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of with direction that the learned Sessions Judge treat the pending appeal as one filed under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and assign it to an appropriate Court for disposal on merits; the Appellate Court to decide it expeditiously without being impeded by any delay in filing. ¶5

Jitender Bhadana Vs Liyakat Ali — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether an appeal against an order of acquittal passed in a complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act can be entertained under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. at the instance of the complainant?

¶2

Court's answer

Answering the issue in the affirmative as no longer res integra in view of the Supreme Court's authoritative pronouncement in M/s Celestium Financial (supra): a complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act qualifies as a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C., being the person who suffers financial loss due to dishonour of a cheque, and is consequently 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.

¶3

Ratio / Principle

Adopting a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach guided by the principle that procedural rules must serve and not obstruct the course of justice, the Court directed that the present appeal be treated as one authoritatively instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., and that the learned Sessions Judge concerned shall treat it as such and assign it to an appropriate Court for disposal on merits, in accordance with law.

¶5

Key takeaways

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.ratio¶6
The Registry was directed to transmit this order along with a copy of the complete paper-book and return the trial Court record, if received, to the learned Sessions Judge.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Leave to appeal against acquittal — Complaint under S.138 NI Act (Punjab & Haryana High Court, CRM-A-860-2019, dec. 25.07.2025, Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.) — Applicant-complainant sought leave to appeal against acquittal of the accused in a S.138 NI Act cheque-dishonour complaint. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804, and this Court's earlier decision in Rajat Deep v. Prince (CRM-A-1320-MA-2016), the Court held that a complainant in a S.138 NI Act prosecution qualifies as a 'victim' under S.2(wa) Cr.P.C. and may appeal against acquittal under the proviso to S.372 Cr.P.C. without special leave under S.378(4) Cr.P.C. The application was disposed of with direction that the appeal be treated as duly instituted under the proviso to S.372 Cr.P.C., assigned by the Sessions Judge to an appropriate Court, and decided expeditiously irrespective of any delay in filing.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

236

¶3

CRM-A-860-2019 Date of decision: July 25, 2025

JITENDER B HADANA

...Applican t

Versus

LIYAKAT ALI

...Responden t

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

¶10

Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Panwar, Ad v ocate for the applicant.

¶11

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.(ORAL)

¶12

The applicant has filed the pre s ent application seeking grant o f leave to app e al against the judgment of acq u ittal passed in a complaint cas e instituted u n der Section 138 of the Neg o tiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter r eferred to as, ‘NI Act’), whe r eby the complaint filed by th e applicant was dismissed and the accused wa s acquitted. 2. The limited question arising fo r consideration in the presen t proceedings is whether an appeal against a n order of acquittal passed in a complaint c a se under Section 138 of the NI A ct can be entertained under th e proviso to S e ction 372 of the Cr.P.C. at the i n stance of the complainant? 3. The issue is no longer res integ r a . In ‘M/s Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. 2025 INSC 804 : 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208’ , the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritativel y held that a complainant in a prosecution u nder Section 138 of the NI A c t, qualifies as a ‘victim’ unde r Section 2(w a ) of the Cr.P.C., being the pers o n who suffers financial loss du e to the disho n our of a cheque. Consequently, s uch a complainant is entitled t o pursue an a p peal against acquittal under th e proviso to Section 372 of th e Cr.P.C., wit h out the requirement of seeki n g special leave under Sectio n 378(4) of th e Cr.P.C.

¶13

Jaspreet Kaur 2025.07.25 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶14

CRM-A-860-2019

¶15

-2-

¶16

Adopting a pragmatic and justi c e oriented approach and guide d by the princ i ple that procedural rule must s e rve and not obstruct the cours e of justice, th i s Court deems it appropriate to direct that the present appeal b e treated as o n e authoritatively instituted und e r the proviso to Section 372 o f the Cr.P.C.

¶17

In view of the authoritative pr o nouncement in M/s Celestium Financial's case (supra) and the view taken by this Court also in subsequen t cases includ i ng in Rajat Deep v. Prince, CRM-A-1320-MA-2016 , dispose d off on 21.0 7 .2025, the present application is disposed of with a directio n that the lear n ed Sessions Judge concerned s h all treat the present appeal as a n appeal filed under the proviso to Section 3 7 2 of the Cr.P.C. and assign th e same to an a p propriate Court for disposal on merits, in accordance with law. 6. The concerned Appellate Co u rt shall proceed to decide th e appeal expe d itiously, without being impe d ed by any delay in filing th e appeal, in v i ew of the legal position now clarified by the Hon'ble Ape x Court.

¶18

The Registry is directed to tra n smit this order along with cop y of the comp l ete paper-book and return the t r ial Court record, if received, t o the learned S essions Judge.

¶19

Disposed of accordingly.

¶20

July 25, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Jaspreet Kaur JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶21

Jaspreet Kaur 2025.07.25 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Jitender Bhadana v. Liyakat Ali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitender Bhadana v. Liyakat Ali

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

Ram Partap Mittal Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sunder Singh Vs Ramesh Kumar

Tara Chand Mangla Vs Pawan Kumar Goyal

Gurmit Singh Vs Ajmer Singh

Sunita Sharma Vs Krishan Vinayak and Anr.

The Ambala District Primary Coperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. Vs Rajinder Pal