[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunil vs Meena Alias Meenu And Others on 1 December, 2025
CRM-A-321-2024 1
205
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-321-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 01.12.2025
Sunil ....Applicant.
VERSUS
Meena @ Meenu & Ors. ....Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kadian, Advocate
the applicant.
****
SUKHVINDER KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. The instant application has been filed under Section 378(4) of
Cr. P.C., seeking grant of leave to file an appeal against the judgment of
acquittal dated 30.11.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Charkhi Dadri, in complaint case bearing No.COMI/24/2016, titled
as 'Sunil Vs. Meena @ Meenu & Ors.', filed under Sections 494, 506, 109,
34 IPC, whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charges for
commission of aforesaid offences.
2. Today, the case was fixed for addressing arguments on the
application. Learned counsel for the appellant, while relying upon a
judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial
vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208, made the
submission while treating the present application as an appeal, filed under
Sections 372 of Cr.P.C. (which is pari materia with Section 413 of
1 of 4
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the same be sent to
appropriate Court for its disposal.
3. Prior to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.
Celestium Financial's case (supra), as per judgment in case M/s Tata
Steel Limited Vs. M/s Atma Tube Produced Limited, 2013(2), R.C.R
(Criminal), 1005, rendered by Full Bench of this Court, a victim in a
private complaint case can challenge the judgment of acquittal by filing an
appeal only before the High Court, after seeking special leave to appeal
under Section 378(4) of Cr. P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.
Celestium Financial's case (supra) after comparative interpretation of
under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. and Section 378(4) of Cr. P.C, observed that
the victim has a right to file an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. before
the Court of Sessions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as
follows:
"7.12 The reasons for the above distinction are not far to see
and can be elaborated as follows: Firstly, the victim of a
crime must have an absolute right to prefer an appeal which
cannot be circumscribed by any condition precedent. In the
instant case, a victim under Section 138 of the Act, i.e., a
payee or the holder of a cheque is a person who has suffered
the impact of the offence committed by a person who is
charged of the offence, namely, the accused, whose cheque
has been dishonoured. Secondly, the right of a victim of a
crime must be placed on par with the right of an accused who
has suffered a conviction, who, as a matter of right can prefer
an appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. A person convicted
of a crimehas the right to prefer an appeal under Section 374
as a matter of right and not being subjected to any conditions.
Similarly, a victim of a crime, whatever be the nature of the
crime, unconditionally must have a right to prefer an appeal.
Thirdly, it is for this reason that the Parliament thought it fit
to insert the proviso to sub-section 372 without mandating
any condition precedent to be fulfilled by the victim of an
offence, which expression also includes the legal
representatives of a deceased victim who can prefer an
appeal. On the contrary, as against an order of acquittal, the
State, through the Public Prosecutor can prefer an appeal
2 of 4
even if the complainant does not prefer such an appeal,
though of course such an appeal is with the leave of the court.
However, it is not always necessary for the State or a
complainant to prefer an appeal. But when it comes to a
victim's right to prefer an appeal, the insistence on seeking
special leave to appeal from the High Court under Section
378(4) of the CrPC would be contrary to what has been
intended by the Parliament by insertion of the proviso to
Section 372 of the CrPC. Fourthly, the Parliament has not
amended Section 378 to circumscribe the victim's right to
prefer an appeal just as it has with regard to a complainant or
the State filing an appeal. On the other hand, the Parliament
has inserted the proviso to Section 372 so as to envisage a
superior right for the victim of an offence to prefer an appeal
on the grounds mentioned therein as compared to a
complainant. Fifthly, the involvement of the State in respect of
an offence under Section 138 of the Act is conspicuous by its
absence. This is because the complaint filed under that
provision is in the nature of a private complaint as per
Section 200 of the CrPC and Section 143 of the Act by an
express intention incorporates the provisions of the Cr.P.C. in
the matter of trial of such a deemed offence tried as a
criminal offence. Therefore, the complainant, who is the
victim of a dishonour of cheque must be construed to be
victim in terms of the proviso to Section 372 read with the
definition of victim under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C."
4. Thus as per the proposition of law laid down by the Apex
Court in M/s. Celestium Financial's case (supra), an appeal against order
of acquittal in a proceeding under Indian Penal Code preferred by the
complainant squarely falls within the ambit of proviso of Section 372 of
Cr.P.C. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court also in Raj Kumar Vs. Rajender
in CRM-A-826 of 2025, decided on 07.07.2025 and Satish Kumar vs.
Jugal Kishore, CRM-A-2700-MA-2018, while relying upon M/s.
Celestium Financial's case (supra), has ordered to treat the application
seeking leave to file appeal as an appeal filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C.
5. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.
Celestium Financial's case (supra), the direction is given to learned
Sessions Judge, Charkhi Dadri, to treat this application/appeal as filed
3 of 4
under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. He/she shall either decide the appeal
himself/herself or entrust the same to appropriate Court for its disposal.
6. It is clarified that nothing has been observed regarding merits
of the case and it has been left open for the consideration of the Sessions
Court concerned to consider the merits of the appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant, present in Court, is directed
to inform the appellant for appearance before the Sessions Court, Charkhi
Dadri. The appellant is also directed to appear before the learned Sessions
Judge, Charkhi Dadri, in person or through their counsel on 12.01.2026.
8. The Registry is directed to send the complete paper-book and
record of the case to learned Sessions Judge, Charkhi Dadri, forthwith.
9. Disposed of.
10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s)
disposed of.
(SUKHVINDER KAUR)
01.12.2025 JUDGE
jyoti3
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
