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 referred/transferred to the Sessions Court to be registered as an appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC / S. 413 BNSS, 2023 (or, if objected, under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023); Registry directed to send the file with the Lower Court's Record to the concerned Sessions Division; pending applications closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether this appeal, filed by the complainant (NSIC Ltd) against the trial court's judgment dismissing the complaint on merits and acquitting the accused, should be transferred to the first Appellate Court (Sessions Court) in view of the Supreme Court's judgment in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran. +1 more

Court's answer

A perusal of the appeal shows that it would be appropriate to transfer this appeal to the first Appellate Court in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, decided on 08.04.2025'; counsel for the respondents endorses no objection to the transfer.

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

Since the complainant should not face the burden of filing an appeal again before the Sessions Court merely because the law has been recently interpreted, 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.ratio¶28
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the CrPC or the BNSS, it shall be registered under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, because the CrPC, 1973, has been repealed.ratio¶28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

CRA-AS-202-2017, High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh (Anoop Chitkara J., decided 21.11.2025) — NSIC Ltd (appellant/complainant; none appeared for the appellant) v. Jaspal Singh and another. The trial court (Criminal Complaint No. 122/2 of 26.03.2004; COMA/0038121/2013 (New), decision 28.02.2014) had dismissed the complaint on merits and acquitted the accused/respondents, and the complainant appealed to the High Court. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in 'Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208' — under which, as quoted therein, a complainant who is the victim of an offence under Section 138 of the Act (cheque dishonour) may proceed under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without electing Section 378 CrPC, the victim's right to appeal not being restricted by the statutory rigours applicable to State/complainant appeals, the proviso having been inserted with effect from 31.12.2009 — this Court held that S. 413 BNSS, 2023 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, so the Celestium ratio applies. Counsel for the respondents endorsed no objection to transfer. The matter was referred to the Sessions Court for registration as an appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023, as applicable (or, if objected as between CrPC and BNSS, under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, the CrPC 1973 having been repealed); the Registry was directed to send the file with the Lower Court's Record to the concerned Sessions Division. Appeal disposed; pending applications closed. Speaking; not reportable.

CRA-AS-202-2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

204-2

CRA-AS-202-2017 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. 122/2 of 26.03.2004
Complaint	COMA/0038121/2013 (New)
	Date of decision: 28.02.2014

Feeling aggrieved by the trial court's judgment, dismissing the complaint on merits, and acqui5ng the accused/respondent, the complainant had come up before this Court by filing the above-men8oned 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 “Celes8um Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, decided on 08.04.2025”.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent endorses no objec8on to transfer the appeal to the first Appellate Court.

In Celes8um 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 Sec8on 138 of the Act, we are of the view that the complainant is indeed the vic8m owing to the alleged dishonour of a cheque. In the circumstances, the complainant can proceed as per the proviso to Sec8on 372 of the CrPC and he may exercise such an op8on and he need not then elect to proceed under Sec8on 378 of the CrPC.

JYOTI 2025.11.26 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRA-AS-202-2017

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 convic8on is not merely a statutory right but can also be construed to be a fundamental right under Ar8cles 14 and 21 of the Cons8tu8on. If that is so, then the right of a vic8m 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 acquiGal cannot be read into the proviso to Sec8on 372 of the CrPC so as to restrict the right of a vic8m to file an appeal on the grounds men8oned therein, when none exists.

[10]. As already noted, the proviso to Sec8on 372 of the CrPC was inserted in the statute book only with effect from 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such inser8on must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the vic8m of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Sec8on 372 of the CrPC, irrespec8ve of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the vic8m of an offence is a complainant, he can s8ll proceed under the proviso to Sec8on 372 and need not advert to sub-sec8on (4) of Sec8on 378 of the CrPC.

In BNSS, 2023, S. 413 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, and thus the ra8o of Celes8um 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, Jus8ce, and Fair play, it would be appropriate to refer this maGer 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 objec8on 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 men8oned above. All pending applica8on(s), if

any, stand closed.

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

JYOTI 2025.11.26 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.