Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pankaj Vig vs Manoj Veera on 29 October, 2025
1
Cr.A.No.2006/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON THE 29TH OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2006/2018
PANKAJ VIG
VS.
MANOJ VEERA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Appellant/complainant by Ms Nandini Tiwari, Advocate.
Respondent by Shri Sharad Gupta, Advocate.
................................................................................................................................................
ORDER
This criminal appeal u/s 378(4) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellant/complainant being
aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.06.2017 passed by learned Special
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jabalpur, in Complaint Case
No.109/2014.
2. Indisputably, the appellant/complainant had filed a written
complaint before the trial Court against the respondent/accused with
regard to dishonour of a cheque, being payee or the holder of the
cheque.
3. On completion of the trial, the learned trial Court has
acquitted the respondent/accused from the charge of offence punishable
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the
appellant/complainant had filed a petition before this Court which was
registered as M.Cr.C. No.14332/2017 and was later-on directed to be
converted into criminal appeal vide order dated 06.03.2018 granting
leave to appeal to the appellant/complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that
the appellant/complainant is a victim, therefore, he has a right to file
appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of CrPC (proviso to Section 413
of BNSS, 2023) as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the
case of Celestium Financial v. A. Ghanasekaran Etc., 2025 OnLine
SC 1320. Thus, learned counsel submits that the appellant/complainant
may be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned judgment
before the competent court i.e. Court of Session.
5. The Supreme Court in the case of Celestium Financial
(supra) has enunciated the legal position with regard to the right of a
victim of an offence to prefer an appeal. The relevant paragraphs are
reproduced hereinunder:-
"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."
6. Thus, it is clear that the appellant/complainant being the
victim of offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act has a right to prefer an
appeal against the judgment passed by the trial Court acquitting the
respondent/accused as per the proviso of Section 372 of CrPC (proviso
to Section 413 of BNSS, 2023) to the Court of Session.
7. In view of the above, the present criminal appeal is disposed
of with a liberty to the appellant/complainant to file an appeal against
the impugned judgment of acquittal before the Court of Session under
the proviso to Section 372 of CrPC within a period of three months from
today and if on the same being done, the issue of limitation shall not be
raised by the respondent/accused as also the appellate court and the
appellate court while considering the appeal within time, shall proceed
to decide it on merits.
8. Certified copy of documents, if any, filed by the
appellant/victim in the instant appeal, shall be returned back to
appellant/victim after substituting photocopy of the same.
9. Record of the trial Court shall be sent back immediately to
the concerned Court.
10. Appeal filed by the appellant/victim is disposed of in the
above terms.
(RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY)
JUDGE
sudesh
