M/S Jena Automatives Vs M/S Hfl Indutries and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

M/S Jena Automatives Vs M/S Hfl Indutries and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Leave-to-appeal application disposed of by referring the matter to the Sessions Court for registration as an appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023 (or, on any CrPC/BNSS objection, under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023), with listing fixed for 27.04.2026.

Issue for consideration

Whether the complainant-applicant's application for leave to appeal (accompanying the appeal against the order dated 15.04.2024 of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad) should be transferred/referred to the first Appellate Court (Sessions Court) in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Celestum Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran. +1 more

Court's answer

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 / Principle

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the CrPC or BNSS, it shall be registered under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, because the CrPC, 1973, has been repealed.

Key takeaways

S. 413 BNSS, 2023 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, and therefore the ratio of Celestum Financial shall apply.ratio¶5
The matter is to be listed before the Sessions Court on 27.04.2026; if the appellant fails to appear, the Sessions Court shall be at liberty to dismiss the matter for non-prosecution.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRM-A-1059-2024, High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh (Anoop Chitkara J.), decided 01.04.2026 — M/s Jena Automatives, the complainant, had filed an application for leave to appeal (accompanying the appeal) against an order dated 15.04.2024 of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad (complaint Criminal CIS No. NACT/3915/2023; CNR No. HRFB0304487402023). Counsel prayed for transfer of the appeal to the first Appellate Court in view of Celestum Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208 (Hon'ble Supreme Court, decided 08.04.2025), whose relevant passages the Court reproduces (inter alia: a complainant who is the victim of an offence under S. 138 may proceed under the proviso to S. 372 CrPC and need not elect S. 378(4); the victim's right to appeal under the proviso to S. 372 CrPC, inserted with effect from 31.12.2009, subsists irrespective of whether the victim is a complainant). Holding S. 413 BNSS, 2023 analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, the Court applied the Celestum ratio and, in the interest of Equity, Justice and Fair Play — so that the complainant need not file the appeal afresh merely because the law has been recently interpreted — referred the matter to the Sessions Court for registration as an Appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023 as applicable, or, on any objection whether under CrPC or BNSS, under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, the CrPC 1973 having been repealed. The Registry is to send the file with the Lower Court's Record to the concerned Sessions Division; listing on 27.04.2026, with liberty to dismiss for non-prosecution if the appellant fails to appear. Leave to appeal stands disposed of. Speaking/reasoned: Yes; Reportable: No.

CRM-A-1059-2024

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

208-1

CRM-A-1059-2024 Date of Decision: 01.04.2026

M/S JENA AUTOMATIVES

......Applicant

Versus

M/S HFL INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER

......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present: Mr. Pragyat Bhardwaj, Advocate and Ms. Tanvir Kaur, Advocate for the appellant.

ANOOP CHITKARA J.

Criminal CIS No. NACT/3915/2023 Complaint CNR No.: HRFB0304487402023 Date of decision: 15.04.2024

Aggrieved by the order dated 15.04.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, the complainant had come up before this Court by filing the abovemen8oned applica8on for leave to appeal accompanying the appeal.

Counsel for the applicant prays for transfer of 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”.

In view of the grounds men8oned in the appeal, ma@er is referred to the Sessions 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.

[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

JYOTI 2026.04.06 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-A-1059-2024

2

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 acqui@al 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 ma@er 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.

Let the ma@er be listed before the Sessions Court on 27.04.2026. It is clarified that in case, the appellant fails to appear before the Sessions Court, the Sessions Court shall be at liberty to dismiss the ma@er for non-prosecu8on.

Leave to appeal stands disposed of.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 01.04.2026/ Jyo�-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No .

JYOTI 2026.04.06 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.