Disposed¶32

Raj Kumar v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Jan 2026CRM-A/843/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Raj Kumar v. State of Punjab and Anr.; CRM-A-843-2024 (O&M); Punjab & Haryana High Court; 14.01.2026; leave to appeal against acquittal; transfer of appeal to Sessions Court; proviso to Section 372 CrPC; Section 413 BNSS 2023 analogous to Section 372 CrPC 1973; Section 138 of the Act cheque dishonour; victim's appeal; Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208; CrPC 1973 repealed; speaking/reasoned Yes; reportable No.

What did the court decide?

Matter referred to the concerned Sessions Division, where it will be registered as an Appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023 (or, on objection, under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023); Registry to send the file with the Trial Court's Record; all pending applications closed. ¶32

Raj Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the complainant's appeal (filed with leave) against the trial court's acquittal should be transferred to the Sessions Court and registered as an appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC / S. 413 BNSS, 2023, in view of the Supreme Court's interpretation in Celestium Financial.

¶28

Court's answer

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

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The complainant should not face the burden of filing an appeal again before the Sessions Court merely because the law has been recently interpreted; in the interest of Equity, Justice and Fair play the matter is referred to the Sessions Court to 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under the CrPC or BNSS, it shall be registered under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, because the CrPC, 1973, has been repealed.

¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRM-A-843-2024 (O&M), High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, decided 14.01.2026 (Anoop Chitkara J.; Sukhvinder Kaur J.). Aggrieved by the trial court's judgment acquitting accused/respondent No.2 (Complaint COMI/749/2017), complainant Raj Kumar applied for leave to appeal along with appeal. Counsel prayed for transfer of the appeal to the first Appellate Court in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208 (decided 08.04.2025), per which a complainant who is the victim of an offence under Section 138 of the Act may proceed under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without electing sub-section (4) of Section 378 CrPC. Holding S. 413 BNSS, 2023 analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, the Court held the complainant should not bear the burden of filing afresh and, in the interest of Equity, Justice and Fair play, referred the matter to the Sessions Court for registration as an Appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023; on any objection as between CrPC and BNSS, registration was directed 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; pending applications closed. Speaking/reasoned: Yes; Reportable: No.

¶1

�

¶2

CRM-A-843-2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

225

¶4

CRM-A-843-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.01.2026

Raj Kumar

......Applicant.

Verus

State of Punjab and Anr.

¶9

......Respondents

¶10

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

¶11

Present: Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate, for the applicant.

¶12

Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

¶14

ANOOP CHITKARA J.

¶15

Criminal	PBLD-0303-8086-2017
Complaint	COMI/749/2017
	Date of decision: 15.03.2024

¶16

Feeling aggrieved by the trial court's judgment, acquitting the accused/respondent No.2, the complainant had come up before this Court by filing the above-mentioned application for leave to appeal alongwith appeal.

¶17

Counsel for the appellant prays for transfer of 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”.

¶18

��

¶19

�� !��" �#$��%�&�� ' ��

¶20

[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

¶21

JYOTI 2026.01.15 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

�

¶23

CRM-A-843-2024 (O&M)

¶24

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.

¶25

[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 CrPC so as to restrict the right of a victim to file an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein, when none exists.

¶26

[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 sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the CrPC.

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

JYOTI 2026.01.15 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

�

¶31

CRM-A-843-2024 (O&M)

¶32