Disposed¶29

Amit Kumar v. Sanjeev Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jan 2026CRR(F)/131/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh; Anoop Chitkara, J.; decided 23.01.2026; CRA-AS-131-2017 (O&M); transfer of complainant's leave-to-appeal to Sessions Court; registration under Proviso to S. 372 CrPC / S. 413 BNSS 2023; Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208; victim's right to appeal against acquittal; CrPC 1973 repealed; BNSS 2023; not reportable.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of with directions to the Registry to send the file, along with the trial court's record if any, to the concerned Sessions Division, where the matter will be registered as an appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC / S. 413 BNSS, 2023 (or, on objection, under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023); pending applications, if any, stand closed. ¶29

Amit Kumar Vs Sanjeev Kumar — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Celestium Financial, the complainant's pending application for leave to appeal against the acquittal should be transferred to the Sessions Court (first Appellate Court) and registered as an appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC / S. 413 BNSS, 2023, rather than requiring fresh filing or leave under S. 378 CrPC.

¶17

Court's answer

S. 413 of the BNSS, 2023 is analogous to S. 372 of the CrPC, 1973; therefore the ratio of Celestium Financial (Supreme Court) shall apply to this case.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Since the law has been recently interpreted, the complainant should not face the burden of filing the appeal again; in the interest of Equity, Justice and Fair play, the matter is 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.

¶27

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the CrPC or the BNSS, it shall be registered under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, because the CrPC, 1973, has been repealed.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Leave-to-appeal — complainant as victim; transfer to Sessions Court. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana (Anoop Chitkara, J.), by order dated 23.01.2026 in CRA-AS-131-2017 (O&M), disposed of the complainant's application for leave to appeal against the trial court's dismissal of his complaint and acquittal of the accused/respondent (complaint decided 20.07.2016) by referring the matter to the Sessions Court for registration as an appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC / S. 413 BNSS, 2023, applying Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208 (SC, decided 08.04.2025). Holding S. 413 BNSS, 2023 analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, the Court further directed that, on any objection as to the governing code, registration shall be under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, the CrPC, 1973 having been repealed; the Registry was to transmit the file, with the trial court record if any, to the concerned Sessions Division. Marked 'Not reportable'.

¶1

CRA-AS-131-2017 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRA-AS-131-2017 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: 23.01.2026

Amit Kumar

......Applicant

Versus

Sanjeev Kumar

......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶12

Present: Mr. Salil Devi Singh Bali, Advocate with Ms. Aarti Singh, Advocate for the applicant.

¶13

¶14

ANOOP CHITKARA J.

¶15

Criminal 171-2 of 07.01.2015/27.08.2015 Complaint Decided on: 20.07.2016

¶16

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

¶17

Counsel for the applicant 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

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

¶19

[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.

¶20

[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

¶21

SONIA BURA 2026.01.27 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CRA-AS-131-2017 (O&M)

¶23

-2-

¶24

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.

¶25

[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.

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 23.01.2026 sonia Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No .

¶31

SONIA BURA 2026.01.27 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Amit Kumar v. Sanjeev Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar v. Sanjeev Kumar

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

Gurdev Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Tirath Singh Vs State of Punjab

M/S Punia Trading Company Vs Gurnam Singh

Rajinder Singh Vs Jarnail Singh

Premjee Motor Finance Co. Vs Teja Khan