Partly allowed

M/S Jeena Automotives v. M/S Hfl Industries and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Apr 2026CRM-A/1097/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, following Supreme Court precedent, held that a complainant in a cheque dishonour case is a victim with a right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC (analogous to Section 413 BNSS). Consequently, the court referred the matter to the Sessions Court for registration as an appeal without requiring a fresh filing, exercising equity to avoid burdening the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal disposed of; matter referred to Sessions Court for registration as an appeal.

M/S Jeena Automotives Vs M/S Hfl Industries and… — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRM-A-1097-2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

208-2

¶5

CRM-A-1097-2024

¶6

Date of Decision: 01.04.2026

¶7

M/S JEENA AUTOMATIVES

¶8

......Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

M/S HFL INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER ......Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

ANOOP CHITKARA J.

¶15

Criminal CIS No. NACT/3916/2023 Complaint CNR No.: HRFB030490042023 Date of decision: 12.04.2024

¶16

Aggrieved by the order dated 12.04.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, the complainant had come up before this Court by filing the abovemen6oned applica6on for leave to appeal accompanying the appeal.

¶17

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 “Celes6um Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, decided on 08.04.2025”.

¶18

The grounds taken by the complainant are men6oned in para 14 of the appeal. In view of the grounds men6oned therein, ma@er is referred to the Sessions Court.

¶19

In Celes6um Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, decided on 08.04.2025, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

¶20

[7.8] In the case of an offence alleged against an accused under Sec6on 138 of the Act, we are of the view that the complainant is indeed the vic6m owing to the alleged dishonour of a cheque. In the circumstances, the complainant can proceed as per the proviso to Sec6on 372 of the CrPC and he may exercise such an op6on and he need not then elect to proceed under Sec6on 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 convic6on is not merely a statutory right but can also be construed to be a fundamental right under Ar6cles 14 and 21 of

¶22

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

¶23

CRM-A-1097-2024

¶24

¶25

the Cons6tu6on. If that is so, then the right of a vic6m 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 Sec6on 372 of the CrPC so as to restrict the right of a vic6m to file an appeal on the grounds men6oned therein, when none exists.

¶26

[10]. As already noted, the proviso to Sec6on 372 of the CrPC was inserted in the statute book only with effect from 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such inser6on must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the vic6m of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Sec6on 372 of the CrPC, irrespec6ve of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the vic6m of an offence is a complainant, he can s6ll proceed under the proviso to Sec6on 372 and need not advert to sub-sec6on (4) of Sec6on 378 of the CrPC.

¶27

In BNSS, 2023, S. 413 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, and thus the ra6o of Celes6um Financial 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, Jus6ce, 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 objec6on 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

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-prosecu6on.

¶31

Leave to appeal stands disposed of.

¶32

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

¶33

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

M/S Jeena Automotives v. M/S Hfl Industries and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jeena Automotives v. M/S Hfl Industries and Another

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

Sahil Vs Inderpal Singh

Raj Kumar Vs Vijay Singh and Another

Sahab Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Debo Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Sandeep Bhatia Vs Dilbag Singh

M/S Jena Automatives Vs M/S Hfl Indutries and Another