[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
M.T. Bhaskar vs Atul Agrawal on 2 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62619
1 CRA-2533-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 2 nd OF DECEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2533 of 2025
M.T. BHASKAR
Versus
ATUL AGRAWAL
Appearance:
Shri Akash Koushal - Advocate for appellant.
ORDER
This appeal has been filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 by "victim" of an offence as defined under Section 138 of
N.I. Act against judgment dated 06.11.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Jabalpur (M.P.) in SC NIA No.92 of 2016, whereby
respondent/accused has been acquitted of an offence under Section 138 of
N.I. Act in the light of provisions contained under Section 256 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 on account of non appearance of the
appellant.
2. Aforesaid criminal case was instituted on the basis of private complaint
filed by the victim/appellant.
3. The question before this Court is whether instant appeal is covered under
proviso to section 413 of BNSS (372 of Cr.P.C.).
4. The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra in light of the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran
Etc., 2025 SCC Online SC 1320. The issue arose in said adjudication was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62619
2 CRA-2533-2025
whether an appeal would be maintainable under the proviso to Section 372
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against an order of acquittal passed
in a case instituted upon a private complaint under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by treating the complainant as a victim
within the meaning prescribed under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C.
5. It is observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 9 and 10 of
Celestium Financial (supra) as under:-
"9. In the circumstances, we find that Section 138 of the Act being
in the nature of a penal provision by a deeming fiction against an
accused who is said to have committed an offence under the said
provision, if acquitted, can be proceeded against by a victim of the
said offence, namely, the person who is entitled to the proceeds of
a cheque which has been dishonoured, in terms of the proviso to
Section 372 of the CrPC, as a victim. As already noted, a victim of
an offence could also be a complainant. In such a case, an appeal
can be preferred either under the proviso to Section 372 or under
Section 378 by such a victim. In the absence of the proviso to
Section 372, a victim of an offence could not have filed an appeal
as such, unless he was also a complainant, in which event he could
maintain an appeal if special leave to appeal had been granted by
the High Court and if no such special leave was granted then his
appeal would not be maintainable at all. On the other hand, if the
victim of an offence, who may or may not be the complainant,
proceeds under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, then in our
view, such a victim need not seek special leave to appeal from the
High Court. In other words, the victim of an offence would have
the right to prefer an appeal, inter alia, against an order of acquittal
in terms of the proviso to Section 372 without seeking any special
leave to appeal from the High Court only on the grounds
mentioned therein. A person who is a complainant under Section
200 of the CrPC who complains about the offence committed by a
person who is charged as an accused under Section 138 of the Act,
thus has the right to prefer an appeal as a victim under the proviso
to Section 372 of the CrPC.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62619
3 CRA-2533-2025
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."
6. Having regard to the law laid down in the aforesaid case as well as the
factual matrix of the instant case, this Court is of the considered view that in
the present appeal, appellant as a victim has a right to prefer an appeal under
the proviso to Section 413 of the BNSS (372 of Cr.P.C.) and he may proceed
with accordingly and it is not at all needed to advert to sub section 4 of
Section 419 of the BNSS [378(4) of Cr.P.C.]. Hence, liberty is reserved to
the victim/appellant herein to file an appeal before the competent court,
having regard to the proviso to Section 413 of BNSS (372 of Cr.P.C.) within
four months from today.
7. However, it is made clear that if appeal was filed before this Court
within limitation or if appeal was not filed within limitation before this Court
but issue of limitation has already been decided by this Court and the delay
in filing the appeal has been condoned and appeal before concerned Sessions
Court is filed within the period of four months from today, then, issue of
limitation shall not be raised by respondents or by the Appellate Court, but if
appeal was not filed before this Court within limitation as prescribed in the
Limitation Act or any application for condonation of delay is pending today,
then, the issue of limitation/ the same shall be decided by the Appellate
Court in accordance with provisions of law.
8. In light of the Celestium Financial (supra), the observations made by
the learned Revisional Court i.e. the Second Additional Sessions Judge,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62619
4 CRA-2533-2025
Jabalpur vide order dated 30.01.2025 is not tenable. Although, the order of
the learned trial Court denotes the acquittal of the accused, but in light of
Celestium Financial (supra), the "complainant" also fall under the definition
of a "victim" and therefore, an appeal under the provisions of Section 372 of
the Cr.P.C. lies and that should be filed before the Court, wherein the appeal
against conviction ordinarily lies i.e. the Court of Sessions. Therefore, in the
light of Celestium Financial (supra), the order of the learned Revisional
Court dated 30.01.2025 is hereby set aside and it is directed to learned
Sessions Court concerned to decide the appeal, if filed subject to the
directions as aforesaid, in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
case of Celestium Financial (supra).
9. Certified copy of documents, if any, filed by the victim/appellant in the
instant appeal, shall be returned back to victim/appellant after substituting
photocopy of the same.
10. Record of the trial Court, if available, shall be sent back immediately
to the concerned Court.
11. Appeal filed by the appellant/victim is disposed of in term as above.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
THK
