Disposed

Indusind Bank Ltd. v. Satender Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC20 May 2026CRA-S/3766/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, following a Supreme Court ruling that victims have a right to appeal under CrPC Section 372, transferred the file to the Sessions Court to be registered as an appeal under CrPC 372 or BNSS 413 for equitable reasons.

What did the court decide?

File remitted to the Sessions Court to be registered as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC / Section 413 BNSS, 2023.

Indusind Bank Ltd. Vs Satender Singh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRA-S-3766-SB-2014

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

202

¶5

CRA-S-3766-SB-2014

¶6

Date of Decision: 20.05.2026

¶7

Indusind Bank Limited ......Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Satender Singh ......Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶11

Present: Mr. Gandharv Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. Mohit Rathee, Advocate for the respondent.

¶13

¶14

ANOOP CHITKARA J.

¶15

Criminal Criminal Complaint No. RBT 599 Complaint Date of decision: 18.05.2012

¶16

Feeling aggrieved by the trial court's judgment, dismissing the complaint on merits, and acqui3ng the accused/respondent, the complainant had come up before this Court by filing the above-men7oned 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 “Celes7um Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, decided on 08.04.2025”.

¶18

Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 endorse no objec7on to the prayer made by the appellant.

¶19

In Celes7um Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, decided on

¶20

08.04.2025, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

¶21

[7.8] In the case of an offence alleged against an accused under Sec7on 138 of the Act, we are of the view that the complainant is indeed the vic7m owing to the alleged dishonour of a cheque. In the circumstances, the complainant can proceed as per the proviso to Sec7on 372 of the CrPC and he may exercise such an op7on and he need not then elect to proceed under Sec7on 378 of the CrPC.

¶22

[8]. The right to prefer an appeal is no doubt a statutory right

¶23

JYOTI 2026.05.22 13:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶24

CRA-S-3766-SB-2014

¶25

¶26

and the right to prefer an appeal by an accused against a convic7on is not merely a statutory right but can also be construed to be a fundamental right under Ar7cles 14 and 21 of the Cons7tu7on. If that is so, then the right of a vic7m 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 Sec7on 372 of the CrPC so as to restrict the right of a vic7m to file an appeal on the grounds men7oned therein, when none exists.

¶27

[10]. As already noted, the proviso to Sec7on 372 of the CrPC was inserted in the statute book only with effect from 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such inser7on must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the vic7m of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Sec7on 372 of the CrPC, irrespec7ve of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the vic7m of an offence is a complainant, he can s7ll proceed under the proviso to Sec7on 372 and need not advert to sub-sec7on (4) of Sec7on 378 of the CrPC.

¶28

In BNSS, 2023, S. 413 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, and thus the ra7o of Celes7um Financial shall apply.

¶29

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, Jus7ce, 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 objec7on 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.

¶30

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

¶31

Appeal is disposed of in the terms men7oned above. All pending applica7on(s), if any, stand closed.

¶32

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

¶33

20.05.2026/ jyo�-II Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: No.

¶34

JYOTI 2026.05.22 13:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Indusind Bank Ltd. v. Satender Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indusind Bank Ltd. v. Satender Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhwinder Singh Vs Gurmukh Singh

Harjit Singh Alias Jeeta and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Amar Nath Vs the Nawanshahr Central Cooperative Bank Limited and Another

Krishan Raj Alias Bittu Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Vikas Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Ut Chandigarh

Gulab Singh Vs State of Haryana and Another