Disposed¶36

Kashmir Singh v. Dial Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 May 2026CRM-A/1288/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Victim-complainant appeal against acquittal; transfer of pending leave-to-appeal to Sessions Court; Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, SC, 08.04.2025) applied; proviso to Section 372 CrPC versus Section 413 BNSS 2023; Section 138 cheque dishonour context; repeal of CrPC 1973; registration of appeal under proviso; Kashmir Singh v. Dial Singh; Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh; decision 18.05.2026.

What did the court decide?

Leave-to-appeal application disposed in the terms stated: Registry to send the file with the Trial Court's record, if any, to the concerned Sessions Division; appeal to be registered under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC / S. 413 BNSS, 2023 as applicable (or, on objection, under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023); CRM-19380-2017 allowed as prayed for; all pending applications closed.

Kashmir Singh Vs Dial Singh and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the complainant's pending application for leave to appeal against the acquittal should be transferred to the Sessions Court (first Appellate Court) and registered as an appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC / S. 413 BNSS, 2023, in view of Celestium Financial, instead of the complainant filing the appeal afresh. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

In the interest of Equity, Justice and Fair play, the complainant should not face the burden of filing the appeal again before the Sessions Court merely because the law has been recently interpreted; the matter is referred to the Sessions Court for registration as an Appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023, as applicable.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

S. 413 of BNSS, 2023 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, and therefore the ratio of Celestium Financial applies — the victim-complainant may proceed under the proviso to S. 372 CrPC / S. 413 BNSS, 2023 without electing sub-section (4) of Section 378 CrPC.

¶28

Key takeaways

If there is any objection regarding whether the appeal falls 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the CrPC or the BNSS, it shall be registered under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, because the CrPC, 1973, has been repealed.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, CRM-A-1288-MA-2017 (O&M) — Kashmir Singh (applicant/complainant) v. Dial Singh and Others — decided 18.05.2026 — Coram: Anoop Chitkara and Sukhvinder Kaur, JJ. The complainant's application for leave to appeal against the trial court's acquittal judgment (Criminal No.350-1/10.08.2010/21.02.2014, decision dated 18.03.2017) was disposed of by referring the matter to the Sessions Court. Applying Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208 (Hon'ble Supreme Court, decided 08.04.2025), the Court held that S. 413 BNSS, 2023 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973 and that Celestium's ratio applies; the appeal is to be registered under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023 as applicable, and, if there is any objection whether it is under the CrPC or BNSS, under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, the CrPC, 1973 having been repealed. CRM-19380-2017 was allowed as prayed for; leave to appeal stands disposed and all pending applications stand closed.

¶1

241

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-A-1288-MA-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.05.2026

KASHMIR SINGH

...Applicant

Versus

DIAL SINGH AND OTHERS

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR

¶10

Present : Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Harsh Gupta, Advocate for the applicant.

¶11

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶12

CRM-19380-2017

¶13

Allowed as prayed for.

¶14

CRM-A-1288-MA-2017

¶15

Criminal No.350-1/10.08.2010/21.02.2014 Complaint Date of decision: 18.03.2017

¶16

Feeling aggrieved by the trial court's judgment, acquitting the

¶17

accused/respondents, the complainant had come up before this Court by filing the above-mentioned application for leave to appeal.

¶18

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 “Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, de-

¶19

cided on 08.04.2025”.

¶20

GURPREET KAUR 2026.05.19 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CRM-A-1288-MA-2017 (O&M)

¶22

-2-

¶23

In Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3)

¶24

RCR(Criminal) 208, decided on 08.04.2025, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

¶25

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

¶26

[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 conviction is not merely a statutory right but can also be construed to be a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. If that is so, then the right of a victim 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 acquittal cannot be read into the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC so as to restrict the right of a victim to file an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein, when none exists.

¶27

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

¶28

In BNSS, 2023, S. 413 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, and thus

¶29

the ratio of Celestium Financial shall apply.

¶30

However, the complainant should not face the burden of filing an

¶31

appeal again before the Sessions Court because the law has been interpreted

¶32

GURPREET KAUR 2026.05.19 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

CRM-A-1288-MA-2017 (O&M) -3-

¶34

recently. Therefore, in the interest of Equity, Justice, and Fair play, it would be appropriate to refer this matter 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 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.

¶35

Given above, the Registry is to send this file with the Trial Court’s Record, if any, to the concerned Sessions Division. The concerned Court shall deal with the appeal in accordance with law.

¶36

7. Leave to Appeal stand disposed of in the terms mentioned above. All pending application(s), if any, stand closed.

¶37

[ANOOP CHITKARA] JUDGE May 18, 2026 [SUKHVINDER KAUR] gurpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶38

GURPREET KAUR 2026.05.19 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kashmir Singh v. Dial Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashmir Singh v. Dial Singh and Ors.

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

Satyawan @ Satyaban Vs State of Haryana

Harsh Alias Deepak Alias Joni Vs State of Haryana and Others

Arif Vs State of Haryana

Darshan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Sohat Vs State of Punjab

Surender Alias Neetu Vs State of Haryana and Others