Madhya Pradesh High Court
Megroove Laboratory vs Ramlakhan Mishra on 25 September, 2025
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49157
1 MCRC-9028-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 25 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9028 of 2022
MEGROOVE LABORATORY
Versus
RAMLAKHAN MISHRA
Appearance:
Shri Sheersh Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
This M.Cr.C. has been filed under Section 378(4) of Code of Criminal
Procedure by "victim" of an offence as defined under Section 138 of N.I. Act
against judgment dated 07.01.2022 passed by JMFC, Jabalpur District-Jabalpur in
complaint Case No.955 of 2018, whereby respondent/accused has been acquitted
of an offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
2. Aforesaid criminal case was instituted on the basis of private complaint
filed by the victim/petitioner.
3. The question before this Court is whether instant appeal/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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49157
2 MCRC-9028-2022
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by treating the complainant in such a
proceeding as a 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49157
3 MCRC-9028-2022
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".
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 appeal also, victim/appellant 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/appellant
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. However, it is made clear that if appeal/petition was filed before this
Court within limitation or if appeal/petition was not filed within limitation before
this Court but issue of limitation has already been decided by this Court and the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49157
4 MCRC-9028-2022
delay in filing the appeal/petition has been condoned and appeal/petition 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/petition 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.
9. Certified copy of documents, if any, filed by the victim/petitioner in
the instant appeal/petition, shall be returned back to victim/petitioner 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 petitioner/victim is disposed of in term as above
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
vai
