Punjab-Haryana High Court
Uday Pal vs S.B. Singh on 11 November, 2025
CRA-AS-492-2023 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
222 CRA-AS-492-2023
Date of decision : 11.11.2025
Uday Pal ... Appellant
Versus
S.B.Singh .. Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL
Present:- Ms. Jasleen Kaur, Advocate for
Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
***
H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of
acquittal dated 04.10.2017 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 his liability, had issued cheque bearing No. 652475 dated
28.03.2013, amounting to Rs. 14,00,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank,
Sector-15, Faridabad which was dishonoured with the remarks ' Funds Insuffi-
cient'. Consequently, the complaint under Section 138 of Act was filed against
the respondent which was dismissed by learned trial Court vide judgment dated
04.10.2017 and the accused was acquitted. Feeling aggrieved with the said
finding, the present 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 appeal, it is important to decide
whether the right of the victim to file an appeal against acquittal in a complaint
1 of 4
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 ap-
peal under Section 374 as a matter of right and not being sub-
jected 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 in-
sert the proviso to sub-section 372 without mandating any condi-
tion precedent to be fulfilled by the victim of an offence, which ex-
pression also includes the legal representatives of a deceased vic-
tim 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 al-
ways 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 insis-
tence on seeking special leave to appeal from the High Court un-
der Section 378(4) of the CrPC would be contrary to what has
been intended by the Parliament by insertion of the proviso to Sec-
tion 372 of the Cr.P.C.
Fourthly, the Parliament has not amended Section 378 to circum-
scribe the victim's right to prefer an appeal just as it has with re-
2 of 4
gard 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 be-
cause 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 vic-
tim of a dishonour of cheque must be construed to be victim in
terms of the proviso to Section 372 read with the definition of vic-
tim 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 real-
ised 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
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-sec-
tion (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 appeal
3 of 4
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
