Disposed¶29

Devender Singh v. State of Haryana and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Dec 2025CRM-A/888/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Victim-complainant appeal against acquittal; transfer from High Court (CRM-A-888-2022, P&H HC, 10.12.2025) to Sessions Court for registration under Proviso to S. 372 CrPC / S. 413 BNSS 2023; Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208 applied; underlying cheque-dishonour complaint (S. 138 context) in NACT/960/2019 Devender Singh v/s Sunil Kumar decided 23.09.2022; CrPC 1973 repealed, BNSS 2023 analogous provision; Anoop Chitkara J.

What did the court decide?

Matter referred to the concerned Sessions Division for registration as an appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC / S. 413 BNSS, 2023; Registry directed to send the file, along with the Lower Court's Record if any, to the concerned Sessions Division; all pending applications disposed of. ¶29

Devender Singh Vs State of Haryana and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the complainant's appeal against acquittal should be transferred to and registered before the Sessions Court (first Appellate Court) as an appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC / S. 413 BNSS, 2023, instead of being pursued before the High Court. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

So that the complainant does not face the burden of filing the appeal again, and in the interest of Equity, Justice and Fair play, the matter is referred to the Sessions Court, where it will be registered as an Appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023, as applicable.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

S. 413 BNSS, 2023 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, and therefore the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (on the victim-complainant's right of appeal under the proviso to S. 372 CrPC) shall apply.

¶27

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the CrPC or the BNSS, it shall be registered under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, because the CrPC, 1973 has been repealed.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal CRM-A-888-2022 (High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, Anoop Chitkara J., decided 10.12.2025): Devender Singh, complainant, aggrieved by the trial court's judgment (Criminal No. NACT/960/2019, 'Devender Singh v/s Sunil Kumar', decided 23.09.2022) dismissing his complaint on merits and acquitting the accused, had appealed to the High Court. On counsel's prayer, and in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, the Court held that S. 413 BNSS, 2023 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973 and that the said ratio shall apply; observing that the complainant should not bear the burden of filing the appeal afresh, it referred the matter to the Sessions Court for registration as an appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023 (any objection as to CrPC or BNSS to be resolved by registration under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, the CrPC, 1973 having been repealed). Registry directed to send the file with the Lower Court's Record to the concerned Sessions Division; pending applications disposed of. Speaking/reasoned: Yes; Reportable: No.

¶1

CRM-A-888-2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

202

¶4

CRM-A-888-2022 Date of Decision: 10.12.2025

Devender Singh

......Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana and another

¶9

......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶11

Present: Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate and Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. Shiva Khurmi, D.A.G., Haryana.

¶13

¶14

ANOOP CHITKARA J.

¶15

Criminal No. NACT/960/2019 titled “Devender Singh v/s Sunil Kumar” decided on Complaint 23.09.2022

¶16

Feeling aggrieved by the trial court's judgment, dismissing the complaint on merits, and acquitting the accused/respondent, the complainant had come up before this Court by filing the above-mentioned appeal.

¶17

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

¶18

��

¶19

�� !��"#��$�%��&��

¶20

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

¶21

[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 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

¶22

¶23

JYOTI SHARMA 2025.12.11 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh

¶24

CRM-A-888-2022

¶25

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.

¶26

[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.

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

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

¶30

�� ��(��&��#��. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶31

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

¶32

10.12.2025 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No .

¶33

�

¶34

JYOTI SHARMA 2025.12.11 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh

Devender Singh v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devender Singh v. State of Haryana and Another

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

M/S R.D. Trading Company Vs Renu Walia

Sanjeev Kamboj Vs Mayank Garg

Savita Vs Satish Rathi

Gajendra Pal Singh Malik Vs State of Haryana and Another

Gajendra Pal Singh Malik Vs State of Haryana and Another

Milap Singh Thakur Vs Rajinder Singh