[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Pawan Kumar Etc on 22 April, 2026
CRM-A-838-MA-2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
131 CRM-A-838-MA-2014.
Date of Decision: 22.04.2026.
State of Haryana ....Appellant.
VERSUS
Pawan Kumar and another ....Respondents.
****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
---
Present: Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Additional Advocate General,
Haryana.
Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) and
Mrs. Jaishree Kaushik, Advocate for the respondents.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
Applicant-State of Haryana, has filed the present application for
seeking grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated
05.09.2013, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, in complaint
case bearing Crl. Complaint No.714-II of 2006, Date of Institution:
08.12.2006, titled as 'State through District Drugs Inspector, Hisar v.
Pawan Kumar and Sanjay Kumar @ Surender Kumar alias Lilu',
whereby the complaint filed by the applicant herein was dismissed by
acquitting the accused/respondents.
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
JITENDER
2026.04.22 18:05
I attest to the accuracy of
this document
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 complaint 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).
JITENDER
2026.04.22 18:05
I attest to the accuracy of
this document
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 under Section 378(4)
Cr.P.C. is disposed of by directing the concerned learned Sessions Judge to
treat the present leave to appeal as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the
Cr.P.C. 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 concerned learned Sessions Judge, forthwith.
8. Disposed of accordingly.
9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
22.04.2026
jitender
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/ No
Whether Reportable : Yes/ No
JITENDER
2026.04.22 18:05
I attest to the accuracy of
this document
