Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mansoor Ali Khan vs Dr. Savyasachi Gupta on 7 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56442
1 MCRC-55629-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
ON THE 7 th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 55629 of 2021
MANSOOR ALI KHAN
Versus
DR. SAVYASACHI GUPTA
Appearance:
Shri Anuj Agarwal - Advocate for the applicant.
ORDER
This petition has been filed under Section 378(4) of Code of Criminal
Procedure by "victim" against judgment dated 21.10.2021 passed by JMFC,
Bhopal in Criminal Case No. 9916797/2017, whereby respondent/accused has
been acquitted of an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
2. Aforesaid criminal case was instituted on the basis of private complaint
filed by the victim/applicant.
3. The question before this Court is whether instant petition is covered
under proviso to section 413 of BNSS (372 of Cr.P.C.).
4. Aforesaid issue has been recently dealt with and adjudicated by
Hon'ble Apex Court in Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 SCC
Online SC 1320.
5. The central issue arising for adjudication in Celestium Financial (supra)
was, 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 in such a proceeding as a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56442
2 MCRC-55629-2021
victim within the meaning ascribed to the term under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C.
6. Aforesaid issue has been adjudicated and answered by Hon'ble Apex
Court in para 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 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."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56442
3 MCRC-55629-2021
7. Hence, having regard to factual matrix of the instant case and principle
of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Celestium Financial (supra) , in this
Court's considered opinion, in the instant case also, victim/applicant has the right
to prefer an appeal as a victim under the proviso to Section 413 of BNSS (372 of
Cr.P.C.) and he should proceed under the proviso to Section 413 of BNSS (372
of Cr.P.C.) and need not advert to sub Section 4 of Section 419 of BNSS (378(4)
of Cr.P.C.). Hence, liberty is reserved to the victim/applicant herein to file the
appeal, having regard to the proviso to Section 413 of BNSS (372 of Cr.P.C.)
within four months from today.
8. Certified copy of documents, if any, filed by the victim/applicant in
the instant petition, shall be returned back to victim/applicant after substituting
photocopy of the same.
9. Record of the trial Court, if available, shall be sent back immediately
to the concerned Court.
10. Present petition filed by the applicant/victim is disposed of in term
as above.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
navin
