[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
K T L Minerals Pvt. Ltd vs D.K. Dogara ..... Opposite Party on 3 December, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLLP No.59 of 2024
K T L Minerals Pvt. Ltd., ..... Petitioner
Cuttack
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. D.K. Mishra
-versus-
D.k. Dogara ..... Opposite Party
Represented By Adv. -
Prasanta Kumar Nanda
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
03.12.2025
Order No. I.A. No.58 of 2024
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner
and learned counsel appearing for the accused-Opposite Party.
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.472 of 2009 which was
registered for alleged 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.12.5. lakhs. He further submitted that because the no step taken
on the victim-complainant, the trial in the complaint case ended in
acquittal of the accused-opposite party vide order dated
16.03.2022. Being aggrieved by such order of acquittal under
Section 256(1) of the Cr.P.C., the Petitioner has sought for 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 order 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
16.03.2022 may be returned by retaining attested Xerox copy
thereof.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Sisir
Designation: Personal Assistant
