Complainant sought leave to appeal against acquittal in a Section 138 NI Act case. Relying on Supreme Court precedent that a victim may appeal directly under Section 372 CrPC without special leave, the court remitted the application to be treated as such an appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM-A-2515-MA-2018 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
283 CRM-A-2515-MA-2018 (O&M) Date of decision:06.07 .2026
Bobby Bhatia
...Applicant
Versus
Munish Kumar Gupta
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:Mr. Harish Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.07 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-2-
CRM-A-2515-MA-2018 (O&M)
Sections 372 of Cr.P.C. (which is pari materia with Section 413 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) , the same be sent to appropriate Court for its disposal.
“7.12 The reasons for the above distinction are not far to see and can be elaborated as follows:
Firstly , the victim of a crime must have an absolute right to prefer an appeal which cannot be circumscribed by any condition precedent. In the instant case, a victim under Section 138 of the Act, i.e., a payee or the holder of a cheque is a person who has suffered the impact of the offence committed by a person who is charged of the offence, namely, the accused, whose cheque has been dishonoured.
Secondly , the right of a victim of a crime must be placed on par with the right of an accused who has suffered a conviction, who, as a matter of right can prefer an appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. A person convicted of a crime has the right to prefer an appeal under Section 374 as a matter of right and not being subjected to any conditions. Similarly, a victim of a crime, whatever be the nature of the crime, unconditionally must have a right to prefer an appeal. Thirdly , it is for this reason that the Parliament thought it fit to insert the proviso to sub-section 372 without mandating
any condition precedent to be fulfilled by the victim of an offence, which expression also includes the legal representatives of a deceased victim who can prefer an appeal. On the contrary, as against an order of acquittal, the State, through the Public Prosecutor can prefer an appeal even if the complainant does not prefer such an appeal,
HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.07 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-A-2515-MA-2018 (O&M)
-3-
though of course such an appeal is with the leave of the court. However, it is not always necessary for the State or a complainant to prefer an appeal. But when it comes to a victim's right to prefer an appeal, the insistence on seeking special leave to appeal from the High Court under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. would be contrary to what has been intended by the Parliament by insertion of the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.
Fourthly , the Parliament has not amended Section 378 to circumscribe the victim's right to prefer an appeal just as it has with regard to a complainant or the State filing an appeal. On the other hand, the Parliament has inserted the proviso to Section 372 so as to envisage a superior right for the victim of an offence to prefer an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein as compared to a complainant.
Fifthly , the involvement of the State in respect of an offence under Section 138 of the Act is conspicuous by its absence. This is because the complaint filed under that provision is in the nature of a private complaint as per Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 143 of the Act by an express intention incorporates the provisions of the CrPC in the matter of trial of such a deemed offence tried as a criminal offence. Therefore, the complainant, who is the victim of a dishonour of cheque must be construed to be victim in terms of the proviso to Section 372 read with the definition of victim under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C.
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 Cr.P.C.
HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.07 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-A-2515-MA-2018 (O&M)
-4-
so as to restrict the right of a victim to file an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein, when none exists.
9. In the circumstances, we find that Section 138 of the Act being in the nature of a penal provision by a deeming fiction against an accused who is said to have committed an offence under the said 50 provision, if acquitted, can be proceeded against by a victim of the said offence, namely, the person who is entitled to the proceeds of a cheque which has been dishonoured, in terms of the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., as a victim. As already noted, a victim of an offence could also be a complainant. In such a case, an appeal can be preferred either under the proviso to Section 372 or under Section 378 by such a victim. In the absence of the proviso to Section 372, a victim of an offence could not have filed an appeal as such, unless he was also a complainant, in which event he could maintain an appeal if special leave to appeal had been granted by the High Court and if no such special leave was granted then his appeal would not be maintainable at all. On the other hand, if the victim of an offence, who may or may not be the complainant, proceeds under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., then in our view, such a victim need not seek special leave to appeal from the High Court. In other words, the victim of an offence would have the right to prefer an appeal, inter alia, against an order of acquittal in terms of the proviso to Section 372 without seeking any special leave to appeal from the High Court only on the grounds mentioned therein. A person who is a complainant under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. who complains about the offence committed by a person who is charged as an accused under Section 138 of the Act, thus has 51 the right to prefer an appeal as a victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.
10. As already noted, the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. 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
HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.07 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-A-2515-MA-2018 (O&M)
-5-
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 Cr.P.C., 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 Cr.P.C.”
HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.07 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-A-2515-MA-2018 (O&M)
-6-
applicant for appearance before the learned Session Judge, Ludhiana. The applicant is directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in person or through his counsel on 12.08.2026.
06.07.2026
harjeet
(MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable
Yes/No Yes/No
HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.07 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a leave-to-appeal application by the complainant against an acquittal under Section 138 NI Act should instead be treated as an appeal under Section 372 CrPC before the Sessions Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. GnanasekaranRelied on¶3
M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208
Satish Kumar vs. Jugal KishoreReferred¶4
Satish Kumar vs. Jugal Kishore, CRM-A-2700-MA-2018
Ajmer Kundu (deceased) through LRs vs. Pardeep SharmaReferred¶4
Ajmer Kundu (deceased) through LRs vs. Pardeep Sharma, CRM-A-481-2022
Raj Kumar vs. RajenderReferred¶4
Raj Kumar vs. Rajender, CRM-A-826-2025(O&M)
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Bobby Bhatia
Munish Kumar Gupta
Manisha Batra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
