Madhya Pradesh High Court
Preetam Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51149
1 CRA-4654-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 9 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4654 of 2023
PREETAM GUPTA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mrs. Shweta Gupta - Advocate for the appellant.
Mrs. Shanti Tiwari - Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1.
ORDER
This appeal has been filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. against
judgment dated 31.10.2022 passed by JMFC, Tamiya District Chhindwara
(M.P.) in Complaint Case No. Criminal Case No.79/2019 whereby
respondent No.2/accused has been acquitted of offences punishable under
Section 304-A of the IPC and Section 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act.
2. Aforesaid criminal case was instituted on the basis of complaint
filed by the complainant/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.) and Section
378(4) of the 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51149
2 CRA-4654-2023
Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 SCC Online SC 1320. The issue arose in said
adjudication 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, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51149
3 CRA-4654-2023
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."
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 complainant 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 complainant/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 respondent 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51149
4 CRA-4654-2023
8. Certified copy of documents, if any, filed by the
complainant/appellant in the instant appeal, shall be returned back to
complainant/appellant after substituting photocopy of the same.
9. Record of the trial Court, if available, shall be sent back
immediately to the concerned Court.
10. Appeal filed by the complainant/appellant is disposed of in
terms as above.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
mrs. mishra
