M/S Advance Auto through Its Authorized Representative/Partner Mr. Parveen @ Parveen Saharan Vs Rahul

Feeling aggrieved by the trial court's judgment, dismissing the complaint on merits, and acqui7ng the accused/respondent, the complainant had come up before this Court by filing the above-men9oned leave to appeal.

¶14

Counsel for the applicant prays for transfer of leave to appeal to the first Appellate Court in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in “Celes9um Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, decided on 08.04.2025”.

¶15

In Celes9um Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, decided on 08.04.2025, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

¶16

[7.8] In the case of an offence alleged against an accused under Sec9on 138 of the Act, we are of the view that the complainant is indeed the vic9m owing to the alleged dishonour of a cheque. In the circumstances, the complainant can proceed as per the proviso to Sec9on 372 of the CrPC and he may exercise such an op9on and he need not then elect to proceed under Sec9on 378 of the CrPC.

¶17

[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 convic9on is not merely a statutory right but can also be construed to be a fundamental right under Ar9cles 14 and 21 of the Cons9tu9on. If that is so, then the right of a vic9m 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 acquiEal cannot be read into the proviso to Sec9on 372 of the CrPC so as to restrict

¶18

�

¶19

JYOTI 2026.01.08 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶20

CRM-A-1225-2025

¶21

the right of a vic9m to file an appeal on the grounds men9oned therein, when none exists.

¶22

[10]. As already noted, the proviso to Sec9on 372 of the CrPC was inserted in the statute book only with effect from 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such inser9on must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the vic9m of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Sec9on 372 of the CrPC, irrespec9ve of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the vic9m of an offence is a complainant, he can s9ll proceed under the proviso to Sec9on 372 and need not advert to sub-sec9on (4) of Sec9on 378 of the CrPC.

¶23

In BNSS, 2023, S. 413 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, and thus the ra9o of Celes9um Financial shall apply.

¶24

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, Jus9ce, and Fair play, it would be appropriate to refer this maEer 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 objec9on 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.

¶25

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

¶26

If the accused has furnished the bail bonds, there shall be no need to refurnish the same, and the bonds furnished pursuant to the order of this Court shall be deemed to be furnished before the Sessions Court and shall also be executable by the concerned appellate Court.

¶27

Leave to appeal is disposed of in the terms men9oned above. All pending applica9on(s), if any, stand closed.

¶28

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 08.01.2026 Jyo9-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No .

¶29

�

¶30

JYOTI 2026.01.08 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

M/S Advance Auto through Its Authorized Representative/Partner Mr. Parveen @ Parveen Saharan v. Rahul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Advance Auto through Its Authorized Representative/Partner Mr. Parveen @ Parveen Saharan v. Rahul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilbag Singh Vs Subhash

Dilbag Singh Vs Subhash

M/S Bali Ram Subhash Chand Commission Agent Vs Yadwinder Singh

Kalyan Sharma Vs Raghubir

M/S Om Parkash Mohan Lal (Regd. Firm) Commission Agents Vs Parampal Singh

Dharmveer Dixit Vs Rajesh Jain