Remanded¶24

Pawan Kumar v. Rohan Goyal

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Feb 2026CRM-A/297/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act; appeal against acquittal at instance of complainant; proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.; Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.; Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C.; victim; special leave; cheque dishonour; Celestium Financial 2025 INSC 804; remand to Sessions Judge Palwal; condonation of delay 33 days; leave to appeal; Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Palwal; Pawan Kumar; Rohan Goyal; Punjab & Haryana High Court.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 33 days in filing the appeal condoned (CRM-13217-2023); leave-to-appeal application remanded to the learned Sessions Judge, Palwal with direction to treat it as an appeal filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C.; Registry to transmit the order with complete paper-book and return the trial Court record; application disposed of accordingly and pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Pawan Kumar Vs Rohan Goyal — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether an appeal against an order of acquittal passed in a complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act can be entertained under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. at the instance of the complainant. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

Adopting a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach, this Court directs that the present appeal be treated as one authoritatively instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Application CRM-13217-2023 is allowed and the delay of 33 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶14

Key takeaways

In view of the Apex Court judgment in Celestium Financial (supra), the application seeking leave to appeal is remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge, Palwal with a direction to treat it as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.; the learned Sessions Judge may retain the appeal on his/her Board or assign it to some other Court of competent jurisdiction.ratio¶24
The Registry is directed to transmit this order along with a copy of the complete paper-book and return the trial Court record, if received, to the learned Sessions Judge, concerned.obiter¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab & Haryana (Aaradhna Sawhney, J.), 05.02.2026 — CRM-A-297-2023 (O&M), Pawan Kumar v. Rohan Goyal: Application for leave to appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 03.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palwal, in a case stemming from a complaint dated 20.05.2016 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Holding the issue no longer res integra, the Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804 : 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208, that a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act prosecution qualifies as a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. and is entitled to pursue an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. without special leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. Directing a pragmatic, justice-oriented approach, the Court ordered the appeal to be treated as authoritatively instituted under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. and remanded the leave application to the learned Sessions Judge, Palwal, to be dealt with as an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C.; delay of 33 days in filing condoned (CRM-13217-2023); Registry to transmit order with paper-book and return trial Court record.

¶1

CRM-A-297-2023 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

281

¶5

CRM-A-297-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.02.2026

¶6

Pawan Kumar ...Appellant Versus Rohan Goyal ...Respondent

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY

¶8

Present : Mr. R.K. Choudhary, Advocate for the appellant.

¶9

¶10

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J.(ORAL)

¶11

CRM-13217-2023

¶12

Application is for condonation of delay of 33 days in filing the

¶13

appeal.

¶14

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same stands allowed and delay of 33 days in filing the appeal is condoned .

¶15

Main Case

¶16

The applicant has filed the present application seeking grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 03.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palwal, in a case stemming from complaint dated 20.05.2016 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter ‘NI Act’).

¶17

2. The limited question arising for consideration in the present proceedings is whether an appeal against an order of acquittal passed in a complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act can be entertained under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. at the instance of the complainant?

¶18

3. The issue is no longer res integra. In ‘M/s Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. 2025 INSC 804: 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208’ , the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that a complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act, qualifies as a ‘victim’ under

¶19

HAMANT 2026.02.06 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRM-A-297-2023 (O&M)

¶21

¶22

Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C., being the person who suffers financial loss due to the dishonour of a cheque. Consequently, such a complainant is entitled to pursue an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., without the requirement of seeking special leave under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C.

¶23

4. Adopting a pragmatic and justice oriented approach and guided by the principle that procedural rule must serve and not obstruct the course of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct that the present appeal be treated as one authoritatively instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.

¶24

5. 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, Palwal with a direction to treat the same as appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge may retain the said appeal on his/her Board or assign it to some other Court of competent jurisdiction.

¶25

6. The Registry is directed to transmit this order along with copy of the complete paper-book and return the trial Court record, if received, to the learned Sessions Judge, concerned.

¶26

7. Disposed of accordingly.

¶27

8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶28

(AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE

¶29

05.02.2026 Hemant

¶30

Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable	: Yes / No : Yes / No

¶31

HAMANT 2026.02.06 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Pawan Kumar v. Rohan Goyal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar v. Rohan Goyal

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

Balwinder Singh @ Billa Vs State of Punjab

Vijay Kumar Vs Manisha

Gaurav Gupta Vs Sumita Jain

Paramjit Singh Alias Pamma Vs State of Punjab

M/S Shree Krishna Rice Mills and Another Vs M/S Mahadev Rice Mills and General Mills

Santosh Rani Vs Vk Steels