The Supreme Court has referred to a larger Bench a significant question impacting cheque dishonour litigation nationwide, whether a complainant in a Section 138 case can challenge an acquittal as a “victim” under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC (now Section 413 BNSS) without first obtaining special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC. The reference signals potential recalibration of appellate remedies in private complaint prosecutions.
The issue arose in a Special Leave Petition filed by M/s Everest Automobiles against M/s Rajit Enterprises challenging an April 10, 2024 ruling of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The petitioner relied on the recent ruling in Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran, where a co-ordinate Bench had held that a complainant in a cheque bounce case qualifies as a “victim” and may file an appeal against acquittal under Section 372 without seeking special leave.
However, the present Bench noted that the decision did not consider earlier binding rulings in Satya Pal Singh vs. State of M.P.and Subhash Chand vs. State (Delhi Administration), which had interpreted the statutory framework differently.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran expressed reservations about the interpretation adopted in Celestium Financial, observing that the structure of Section 372 and Section 378 CrPC indicates a deliberate distinction between a prosecuting agency and a complainant pursuing a private complaint. The Court underscored that Sections 378(4) and (5) were consciously retained to require a complainant to seek leave before appealing an acquittal.
Calling the issue one of “far-reaching consequences,” the Bench directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger Bench.
Picture Source :
