Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Regency Fashions vs M/S Mohini Hosiery Mills And Another on 4 November, 2025
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
CRA-AS-68-2020 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
249-B CRA-AS-68-2020 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-04.11.2025
M/S REGENCY FASHIONS ......APPELLANT
VS.
M/S MOHINI HOSIERY MILLS & ANR. ......RESPONDENTS
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:- Mr. Ivan Singh Khosa, Advocate
for the applicant-appellant.
***
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)
1. The present application has been preferred under Section
378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'CR.P.C.')
seeking grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 24.07.2018
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana in a case
stemming from complaint dated 29.11.2013 filed under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as 'NI Act').
2. A perusal of the file would reveal that vide order dated
18.02.2020 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the present
application seeking leave to appeal was allowed/granted and the same is
treated as CRA-AS-68-2020.
3. The complaint (supra) was filed on the ground of dishonour
of cheque. After assessing all the material available on the record, the
learned trial Court dismissed the complaint being infructuous vide order
dated 24.07.2018 as accused No.2, namely, Vijay Kumar Nayyar has been
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial vs.
A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208, after considerable
discussion and comparative interpretation of Sections 372 and 378(4) of
Cr.P.C., concluded that the victim has a right to file an appeal under
Section
372 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions. Speaking through Justice
B.V. Nagarathna, the following was held:
"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 CrPC. A
person convicted of a crime has 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 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 CrPC 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 CrPC."
5. In view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Celestium Financial (supra) and this Court in Satish Kumar vs.
Jugal Kishor in CRM-A-277-MA-2016 decided on 02.07.2025, the
learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana directed to treat the present leave to
appeal as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the
same to appropriate Court for its disposal on merits, expeditiously.
6. The Registry is directed to send the complete paperbook and
the record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana forthwith.
7. Disposed of accordingly.
8. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stands
disposed of.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
JUDGE
November 04, 2025
Kusum
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
