Disposed¶27

Balwant Singh v. Swarna Rani and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Jan 2026CRM-A/444/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-A-444-2023; Punjab and Haryana High Court; 21.01.2026; Sukhvinder Kaur J (oral); Anoop Chitkara J; leave to appeal; acquittal; complainant as victim; proviso to Section 372 CrPC; Section 413 BNSS 2023; Section 378(4) CrPC; Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran; transfer/referral to Sessions Court; COMI-64/2016; cheque dishonour context; disposed.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal disposed of in the terms stated: matter referred to the Sessions Court for registration as an appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023; Registry directed to send the file, along with the Trial Court's record, to the concerned Sessions Division; all pending applications closed. ¶27

Balwant Singh Vs Swarna Rani and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the leave to appeal filed by the complainant against the acquittal should be transferred to the first Appellate Court (Sessions Court) in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Celestium Financial. +2 more

¶16

Court's answer

The leave to appeal is to be transferred/referred to the Sessions Court, where it will be registered as an appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023, as applicable, in view of the Supreme Court's judgment in Celestium Financial; the complainant should not face the burden of filing an appeal again because the law has been interpreted recently.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

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

¶25

Key takeaways

If there is any objection regarding whether the appeal is 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the CrPC or the BNSS, it shall be registered under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, because the CrPC, 1973, has been repealed.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court, CRM-A-444-2023, decided 21.01.2026 (Anoop Chitkara and Sukhvinder Kaur JJ.; oral judgment by Sukhvinder Kaur J.). Balwant Singh, complainant/applicant, whose leave to appeal challenged the trial court's judgment in Criminal Complaint Case No. COMI-64/2016 (decided 09.12.2022) dismissing the complaint on merits and acquitting the accused/respondents (Swarna Rani and Others). None appeared for the applicant. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, the Court held that S. 413 BNSS, 2023 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973 and that the ratio of Celestium Financial shall apply; in the interest of equity, justice and fair play, and so that the complainant does not bear the burden of filing an appeal afresh, the matter was referred to the Sessions Court to be registered as an appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023, as applicable; any objection on CrPC versus BNSS is to be resolved by registration under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, the CrPC, 1973 having been repealed. Registry to send the file with the trial court's record to the concerned Sessions Division; leave to appeal disposed of; pending applications closed.

¶1

240

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-A-444-2023

¶4

Date of Decision: 21.01.2026

¶5

BALWANT SINGH VERSUS SWARNA RANI AND OTHERS

¶6

….Applicant(s)

¶7

….Respondent(s)

¶8

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

¶9

Present: None for the applicant.

¶10

Mr. Prabhjot Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶11

Mr. Aakash Singla, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶12

¶13

SUKHVINDER KAUR, J. (Oral)

¶14

Criminal Complaint Case No.COMI-64/2016 Complaint Date of decision: 09.12.2022

¶15

Feeling aggrieved by the trial court's judgment, dismissing the complaint on merits, and acquitting the accused/respondents, the complainant had come up before this Court by filing the above-mentioned application for leave to appeal accompanying the appeal.

¶16

None has appeared on behalf of the applicant. A perusal of leave to appeal shows that it would be appropriate to transfer this leave to 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, decided on 08.04.2025”.

¶17

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

¶18

[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.

¶19

[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

¶20

SANGEETA 2026.01.29 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

¶22

CRM-A-444-2023

¶23

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.

¶24

[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 subsection (4) of Section 378 of the CrPC.

¶25

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

¶26

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, 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.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

¶30

(SUKHVINDER KAUR) January 21, 2026 JUDGE Sangeeta Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶31

SANGEETA 2026.01.29 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Balwant Singh v. Swarna Rani and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balwant Singh v. Swarna Rani and Others

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

Gagandeep Singh @ Sonu Vs State of Punjab and Others

Maan Singh Vs National Investigation Agency and Others

Yadavindra Public School, Patiala Vs Vinaira and Others

Jumma Ram Vs State of Haryana

Jagdish Chand Vs Madhu and Ors.

Mahinder Singh Vs Rajbir and Others