Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shivdeep Sharma @ Shivdeep Singh vs Pooja Sharma And Others on 13 November, 2025
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
CRM-A-663-2023 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
241 CRM-A-663-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-13.11.2025
SHIVDEEP SHARMA @ SHIVDEEP SINGH ......APPELLANT
VS.
POOJA SHARMA AND OTHERS ......RESPONDENTS
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:- Mr. Harish Goyal, Advocate
for the applicant-appellant.
***
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)
CRM-21188-2023
This is an application under Section 05 of the Limitation Act
for condonation of delay of 13 days in filing the appeal.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed and the delay of 13 days in fling the appeal is hereby condoned.
CRM-A-663-2023
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 of acquittal dated
10.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Mansa in a case stemming from complaint dated 10.04.2018 filed under
Sections 436, 406, 307, 323, 379, 427, 506 and 120-B of IPC.
2. The complaint (supra) was filed for the offences under
Sections 436, 406, 307, 323, 379, 427, 506 and 120-B of IPC on the
ground of assault. After assessing all the material available on the record,
the trial Court acquitted the respondent vide judgment dated 10.01.2023.
3. 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
KUSUM 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."
4. In view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
KUSUM Court in Celestium Financial (supra), this Court in Dharampal Vs. State
of Haryana & Others in CRM-A-489-MA-2017 decided on 11.08.2025, ,
the learned Sessions Judge, Mansa is 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.
5. The Registry is directed to send the complete paperbook and
the record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Mansa forthwith.
6. Disposed of accordingly.
7. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stands
disposed of.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
JUDGE
November 13, 2025
Kusum
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
