Remanded¶18

Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. v. Vikash

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Feb 2026CRM-A/1654/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

leave to appeal; Section 378(4) CrPC; Section 372 CrPC; appeal against acquittal by complainant/victim; Section 138 NI Act complaint; Celestium Financial; Satish Kumar Jugal Kishor; Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Raj Kumar Arora; retrospective applicability of judgments; remand to Sessions Judge; Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. versus Vikash; Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh; 19.02.2026; CRM-A-1654-2024 (O&M).

What did the court decide?

Application remanded to the learned Sessions Judge concerned with direction to treat it as filed under Section 372 CrPC and to dispose of it himself/herself or entrust it to appropriate Court; Registry directed to send the complete paper-book and case record to the Sessions Judge forthwith; application disposed of accordingly. ¶18

Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Vs Vikash — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant's application for leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC (against acquittal in a Section 138 NI Act complaint case) should be treated as an appeal filed under Section 372 CrPC before the Court of Sessions.

¶18

Court's answer

In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Celestium Financial, the leave-to-appeal application under Section 378(4) CrPC is remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge concerned with a direction to treat it as filed under Section 372 CrPC and to dispose of it by himself/herself or entrust it to an appropriate Court.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Registry directed to send the complete paper-book and the record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge concerned forthwith.

¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Subhas Mehla, J., oral order), 19.02.2026 — CRM-A-1654-2024 (O&M): Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.'s leave-to-appeal application under S.378(4) CrPC against the acquittal dated 23.09.2024 (JMFC Ist Class, Bahadurgarh) in a S.138 NI Act complaint case against respondent Vikash was disposed of by remanding it to the Sessions Judge with a direction to treat it as filed under S.372 CrPC, in view of the Supreme Court's conclusion in M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran (2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208) that the victim has a right to file an appeal under S.372 before the Court of Sessions; reliance also placed on Satish Kumar v. Jugal Kishor (CRM-A-2700-MA-2018, decided 02.07.2025) and on Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora (2025 SCC Online 819) for the rule that judgments are applicable retrospectively; Registry directed to forward the complete paper-book and record forthwith.

¶1

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

265

¶3

CRM-A-1654-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 19.02.2026

¶4

Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. … Applicant

Versus

Vikash

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA

¶9

Present:Mr. Daman Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the applicant.

¶10

¶11

SUBHAS MEHLA, J . (Oral)

¶12

The present application has been preferred under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 23.09.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bahadurgarh, in a complaint case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter ‘NI Act’).

¶13

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208 , after considerable discussion and comparative interpretation of Sections 372 and 378(4) of Cr.P.C., concluded that the victim has a right to file an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions. Reliance in this regard can also be placed on Satish Kumar Versus Jugal Kishor in CRM-A-2700-MA-2018 decided on 02.07.2025 . Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Directorate of

¶14

GEETA RANI 2026.02.20 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶15

CRM-A-1654-2024 (O&M)

¶16

( 2 )

¶17

Revenue Intelligence Vs. Raj Kumar Arora in 2025/NSC 498; 2025 SCC Online 819 has clarified that as a rule of thumb, judgments rendered shall be applicable retrospectively.

¶18

Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Celestium Financial (supra) , the present application seeking leave to appeal is remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge concerned with a direction to treat the same as filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and to dispose of by himself/herself or entrust it to appropriate Court for its disposal.

¶19

The Registry is directed to send the complete paper-book and the record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge concerned forthwith.

¶20

5. Disposed of accordingly.

¶21

19.02.2026

¶22

Geeta

¶23

( SUBHAS MEHLA ) JUDGE Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No

¶24

GEETA RANI 2026.02.20 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. v. Vikash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. v. Vikash

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

Romi Kumar Vs Ashok Kumar

Daulat Ram Vs Vinod

Davinder Partap Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Surjit Singh Vs Raghbir Singh

Mandeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Anil Gupta Vs State of Punjab