[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Hrudananda Kar vs Om Prakash Mishra ..... Opposite Party on 3 December, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLLP No.43 of 2025
Hrudananda Kar ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Amit Prasad Bose
-versus-
Om Prakash Mishra ..... Opposite Party
Represented By Adv. -
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
03.12.2025
Order No.
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein.
3. The present leave application has been filed at the instance
of the complainant-victim in 1CC case No.05 of 2013 (T.R.
No.188 of 2023) which was registered for commission of offence
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended
that the above noted complaint case was registered at the instance
of the complainant-victim alleging commission of offence under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act for dishonour of a cheque worth of
Rs.8,18,984/-. He further submitted that the trial in the complaint
case entered in acquittal of the accused-opposite party vide
judgment dated 24.02.2025. Being aggrieved by such order of
acquittal under Section 255(1) of the Cr.P.C., the Petitioner has
sought leave from this Court under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. to
prefer an appeal against the aforesaid judgment of acquittal.
5. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the Opposite Party-accused. On perusal of the record it
appears that the complaint-Petitioner was the victim in the
complaint case. In view of the definition of the victim as has been
laid down in Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C., the Petitioner as a
victim is squarely covered under such definition. It has also been
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Celestium
Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. reported in (2025) SCC
Online SC 1320 that the complainant in a proceeding under
Section 138 of N.I. Act can very well be termed as a victim.
6. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is of the
considered view that the Petitioner does not require any leave to
prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal. Law is well
settled that the right has been conferred upon the victim to prefer
an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. Such
right has also been protected under the provision of Section 413 of
the BNSS. Since the proceeding in the present application was a
trial under the Cr.P.C., it is open to the Petitioner to prefer an
appeal directly under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. In
view of the aforesaid position, this Court disposes of the leave
petition by directing the Petitioner to file an appeal within four
weeks from today along with an application for condonation of
delay. In the event any such application for condonation of delay
is filed, the same shall be considered leniently, taking into
consideration and the fact that the Petitioner had approached this
Court on an erroneous footing and, such delay be condoned.
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the leave
application stands disposed of. Certified copy of order dated
24.02.2025 may be returned by retaining attested Xerox copy
thereof.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Sisir
Designation: Personal Assistant
