Disposed¶28

Ram Bhagat v. Gamdoor Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Mar 2026CRM-A/465/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran 2025 INSC 804; complainant as 'victim' Section 2(wa) CrPC; appeal against acquittal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC; no special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC; Section 138 NI Act cheque dishonour complaint; remand to Sessions Judge; condonation of delay 903 days; exemption certified copies; Ram Bhagat v. Gamdoor Singh; Sardulgarh; Punjab & Haryana High Court; Aaradhna Sawhney.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 903 days in filing the appeal condoned (CRM-7018-2018); exemption from filing certified copies of the impugned order granted (CRM-7019-2018); leave-to-appeal application remanded to the concerned Sessions Judge to be treated as an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C.; Registry directed to transmit the order with the complete paper-book and return the trial court record; pending applications disposed of.

Ram Bhagat Vs Gamdoor Singh — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

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.

¶19

Court's answer

Guided by Celestium Financial (supra), this Court deemed 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., i.e., the Section 138 complainant may pursue the appeal against acquittal without special leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The application seeking leave to appeal is remanded back to the concerned Sessions Judge with a direction to treat it as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.; the Sessions Judge may retain it on his/her Board or assign it to another Court of competent jurisdiction.

¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Aaradhna Sawhney, J.), CRM-A-465-MA-2018 (O&M), decided 18.03.2026: Appellant sought leave to appeal against a judgment of acquittal dated 15.05.2015 passed by the SDJM, Sardulgarh, in a complaint dated 04.06.2013 under Section 138 NI Act. On the limited question whether a complainant can appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., the Court relied on M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804, wherein the Supreme Court held a Section 138 complainant to be a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. entitled to appeal without special leave under Section 378(4). Accordingly, the Court directed that the appeal be treated as instituted under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. and remanded the leave application to the concerned Sessions Judge to deal with it as such. Delay of 903 days condoned; disposed of accordingly.

¶1

CRM-A-465-MA-2018 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

269

¶5

CRM-A-465-MA-2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.03.2026

¶6

Ram Bhagat ...Appellant Versus Gamdoor Singh ...Respondent

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY

¶8

Present : Mr. Rajinder Singla, Advocate for the appellant.

¶9

¶10

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J.(ORAL)

¶11

CRM-7018-2018

¶12

Application is for condonation of delay of 903 days in filing the

¶13

appeal.

¶14

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same stands allowed and delay of 903 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶15

CRM-7019-2018

¶16

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Exemption from filing the certified copies of the impugned order is granted.

¶17

Main Case

¶18

The applicant has filed the present application seeking grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 15.05.2015 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sardulgarh, in a case stemming from complaint dated 04.06.2013 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter ‘NI Act’)

¶19

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?

¶20

3. The issue is no longer res integra. In ‘M/s Celestium Financial

¶21

HAMANT 2026.03.19 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

¶23

CRM-A-465-MA-2018 (O&M)

¶24

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 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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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 concerned Sessions Judge 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.

¶27

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.

¶28

7. Disposed of accordingly.

¶29

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

¶30

(AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE

¶31

18.03.2026 Hemant

¶32

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

¶33

HAMANT 2026.03.19 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ram Bhagat v. Gamdoor Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Bhagat v. Gamdoor Singh

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 Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Mandeep Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Veerdeep Kaur and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Kashmir Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sukha Singh Alias Sukha Vs State of Punjab

Manoj Kumar Vs Nirmal Singh