Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gunraj Singh Saini & Anr vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 18 November, 2025
CRM-A-359-MA-2017 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
270
CRM-A-359-MA-2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision: November 18, 2025
Gunraj Singh Saini and another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.....Non-applicant(s)/Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: None.
***
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1. Applicant - Gunraj Singh Saini and another has filed the
present application seeking grant of leave to appeal against the judgment
of acquittal dated 30.11.2016, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Hoshiarpur, in Complaint case bearing No. COMI/2608/2013,
instituted on 12.02.2005, under Section(s) 9, 39, 40, 44, 48-A, 50 and 51
of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, read with Section 506 IPC, titled
as 'Gunraj Singh Saini v. Puneet Goel and others', whereby the
complaint filed by the applicant(s) herein has been dismissed by
acquitting the accused.
2. Shorn off the factual matrix of the present case, it is suffice
to notice that in the recent mandate of law laid down by Hon'ble the
Apex Court, in the case of M/s Celestium Financial v. A.
Gnanasekaran etc. [Criminal Appeal Nos. 1868-70 of 2025, decided
on 08.04.2025, reported as 2025 (3) RCR (Criminal) 208 : Law
Finder Doc Id # 2737710 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320], their
Lordships' have answered the issue in affirmative that whether an appeal
would be maintainable under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.
(corresponding Section 413 of BNSS, 2023), against an order of acquittal
passed in a case instituted upon a private complaint, by treating the
complainant in such a proceeding as a 'victim' within the meaning
ascribed to the term under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C.
3. After encapsulating in detail the provisions of Sections 2(d),
(n) & (wa), 24, 200, 372, 377, 378, 386 of the Cr.P.C.; Sections 138, 139,
141, 142, 143 and 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; and the
earlier view point of the Hon'ble Supreme Court taken in the case of
Mallikarjun Kodagali (dead) represented through Legal
representative v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752, an ongoing
debate 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., has been put to rest. Succinctly, in Celestium Financial's case
(supra) it has been held that the 'victim' has a right to file an appeal
under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions.
4. It is apposite to mention here that the judgment in the case
of Celestium Financial (supra) has been followed and relied upon by
this Court in the case of M/s Associated Road Carriers Limited v.
Manjit Singh and others (CRM-A-885-MA-2013, decided on
07.07.2025) as well as by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Satish Kumar v. Jugal Kishor (CRM-A-2700-MA-2018, decided on
02.07.2025).
5. Having gone through the recent mandate of Hon'ble the
Apex Court in Celestium Financial's case (supra), and the view taken
by this Court in the case of M/s Associated Road Carriers Limited
(supra) as well as by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Satish Kumar (supra), there exists no ground to take a different view in
the present case.
6. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of by
directing the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, to treat the present
leave to appeal as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.
(corresponding Section 413 of BNSS, 2023) and entrust the same to any
appropriate Court to try the same. The concerned Court shall decide the
appeal on merits as per law, as expeditiously as possible.
Since similar directions are being passed by this Court in
number of cases, the concerned Appellate Court need not to adhere to the
delay aspect, if any, involved in the case, for the purpose of considering
the issue raised in the appeal and its disposal on merit.
7. The Registry is directed to transmit this order alongwith
copy of the complete paper-book of this case, as also return the record of
the Trial Court, if received, to the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur,
forthwith.
8. Disposed of accordingly.
9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
( SANJAY VASHISTH )
JUDGE
November 18, 2025
Pkapoor
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
