Nsic Ltd. Vs Jaspal Singh and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Nsic Ltd. Vs Jaspal Singh and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

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

Issue for consideration

Whether the complainant's pending appeal in the High Court against the trial court's dismissal of its complaint and acquittal of the accused should be transferred to the first Appellate Court (Sessions Division) for registration as an appeal under the proviso to S. 372 CrPC / S. 413 BNSS, 2023, in view of Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran.

Court's answer

The present appeal is to be transferred to the first Appellate Court in view of the Supreme Court's judgment in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, and counsel for the respondents endorsed no objection to such transfer.

Ratio / Principle

S. 413 of the BNSS, 2023 is analogous to S. 372 of the CrPC, 1973, and accordingly the ratio of Celestium Financial (that a complainant-victim may proceed under the proviso to S. 372 CrPC rather than S. 378 CrPC) shall apply.

Key takeaways

The complainant should not bear the burden of filing an 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 / S. 413 BNSS, 2023, as applicable, and if there is any objection it shall be registered under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023 because the CrPC, 1973 has been repealed.ratio¶28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 (CRA-AS-198-2017), NSIC Ltd v. Jaspal Singh & Anr (Punjab & Haryana HC, Anoop Chitkara J., 21.11.2025): Complainant's appeal against the trial court's judgment (complaint COMA/38435/2013, decided 28.02.2014) dismissing the complaint on merits and acquitting the accused. No one appeared for the appellant. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208 (08.04.2025) — under which a complainant who is the victim of a S. 138 offence may appeal under the proviso to S. 372 CrPC without resorting to S. 378(4) CrPC — the Court held that S. 413 BNSS, 2023 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973 and that the Celestium ratio applies. To spare the complainant the burden of filing a fresh appeal, the matter was referred to the Sessions Court for registration as an appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC / S. 413 BNSS, 2023, failing which under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023 (CrPC, 1973 having been repealed). Appeal disposed of; pending applications closed; Registry directed to transmit the file with the Lower Court's Record to the concerned Sessions Division.

CRA-AS-198-2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

204-1

CRA-AS-198-2017 Date of Decision: 21.11.2025

NSIC LTD

..…..Appellant

Versus

JASPAL SINGH AND ANR ......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present: None for the appellant.

Mr. Varun Bhanth, Advocate and Mr. Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate for the respondents.

ANOOP CHITKARA J.

Criminal	No. 180/2 of 24.03.2003
Complaint	COMA/38435/2013
	Date of decision: 28.02.2014

Feeling aggrieved by the trial court's judgment, dismissing the complaint on merits, and acqui2ng the accused/respondent, the complainant had come up before this Court by filing the above-men5oned appeal.

None has appeared on behalf of the appellant. A perusal of the appeal shows that it would be appropriate to transfer this appeal to the first Appellate Court in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in “Celes5um Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, decided on 08.04.2025”.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent endorses no objec5on to transfer the appeal to the first Appellate Court.

In Celes5um Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, decided on

08.04.2025, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

[7.8] In the case of an offence alleged against an accused under Sec5on 138 of the Act, we are of the view that the complainant is indeed the vic5m owing to the alleged dishonour of a cheque. In the circumstances, the complainant can proceed as per the proviso to Sec5on 372 of the CrPC and he may exercise such an op5on and he need not then elect to proceed under Sec5on 378 of the CrPC.

JYOTI 2025.11.21 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRA-AS-198-2017

2

[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 convic5on is not merely a statutory right but can also be construed to be a fundamental right under Ar5cles 14 and 21 of the Cons5tu5on. If that is so, then the right of a vic5m 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 acquiFal cannot be read into the proviso to Sec5on 372 of the CrPC so as to restrict the right of a vic5m to file an appeal on the grounds men5oned therein, when none exists.

[10]. As already noted, the proviso to Sec5on 372 of the CrPC was inserted in the statute book only with effect from 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such inser5on must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the vic5m of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Sec5on 372 of the CrPC, irrespec5ve of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the vic5m of an offence is a complainant, he can s5ll proceed under the proviso to Sec5on 372 and need not advert to sub-sec5on (4) of Sec5on 378 of the CrPC.

In BNSS, 2023, S. 413 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, and thus the ra5o of Celes5um Financial shall apply.

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, Jus5ce, and Fair play, it would be appropriate to refer this maFer 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 objec5on 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.

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

Appeal is disposed of in the terms men5oned above. All pending applica5on(s), if

any, stand closed.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 21.11.2025 jyo�-II Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: No.

JYOTI 2025.11.21 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.