Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Aggcon Equipments International ... vs M/S Blues Tele Technologies Pvt. Ltd. ... on 11 November, 2025
CRM-A-1632-2023 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
225 CRM-A-1632-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision : 11.11.2025
M/s Aggcon Equipments
International (P) Ltd. ... Applicant
Versus
M/s Blues Tele Technologies Pvt.
Ltd. And others .. Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL
Present:- Mr. Ashok Kumar Jindal, Advocate for the applicant.
***
H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)
CRM-48393-2023
This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1894 read
with Section 482 Cr.P.C for condonation of delay of 327 days in filing the
present appeal.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and a
delay of 327 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.
Main application
1. The present application has been preferred under Section 378(4)
Cr.P.C. seeking grant of leave to appeal of the judgment of acquittal dated
11.10.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad in the
complaint case Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter
'Act').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent, in order to
discharge their liability, had issued cheque bearing No. 869344 dated
08.11.2017, amounting to Rs. 15,00,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Gwalior,
Madhya Pradesh which was dishonoured with the remarks ' Funds Insufficient'.
1 of 4
CRM-A-1632-2023 (O&M) -2-
Consequently, the complaint under Section 138 of Act was filed against the
respondents which was dismissed by learned trial Court vide judgment dated
11.10.2022 and the accused were acquitted. Feeling aggrieved with the said
finding, the present application seeking grant of leave to appeal has been
preferred.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have perused the
material available on record.
4. Before proceeding to hear the application (for grant of leave to
appeal)/appeal, it is important to decide whether the right of the victim to file an
appeal against acquittal in a complaint case would fall under Section 372 or
Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C.
5. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial vs. A.
Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208, had laid comprehensive
interpretation of Sections 372 and 378(4) of Cr.P.C. and had concluded that the
victim has a right to file an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. before the Court
of Sessions. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:-
"7.12 xxxxxxx
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
2 of 4
CRM-A-1632-2023 (O&M) -3-
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 Cr.P.C.
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 Cr.P.C. 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.
xxxxxxxxx
10. As already noted, the proviso to Section 372 of the
Cr.P.C. 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
3 of 4
CRM-A-1632-2023 (O&M) -4-
Cr.P.C., 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 Cr.P.C. "
6. In view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Celestium Financial (supra) which has been followed by this Court in
CRM-A-886-MA-2015, tilted as 'Rajesh Kumar versus M/s Success
Enterprises and another', decided on 08.07.2025 and similar view taken by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-A-2700-MA-2018, tilted as 'Satish
Kumar vs. Jugal Kishor' decided on 02.07.2025, the present application
seeking leave to appeal is, hereby, disposed of with the direction to the learned
Sessions Judge, Faridabad to treat the present leave to appeal as an appeal filed
under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to appropriate Court for its
disposal.
7. The Registry is directed to send the complete paper-book and the
record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad forthwith.
(H.S.GREWAL)
11.11.2025 JUDGE
renu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
