[Cites 25, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Simerpreet Singh vs Piara Singh And Others on 14 January, 2026
CRM-A-33-2023 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
204 CRM-A-33-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 14.01.2026
Simerpreet Singh ...Applicant.
Versus
Piara Singh and others ...Respondents.
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
.......
Present: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate for the applicant.
***
SUKHVINDER KAUR, J.
The instant application has been filed under Section 378(4)
read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short
'Cr.P.C.') seeking grant of leave to file an appeal against the judgment of
acquittal dated 31.10.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Sultanpur Lodhi in Criminal Complaint No.COMI-29-2016, titled as
'Simerpreet Singh Vs. Piara Singh and others', filed under Sections 499,
500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 506, 107, 109, 114, 34, 120-B of IPC, whereby the
respondents were acquitted for commission of offences punishable under
Sections 500 and120-B of IPC.
2. Today, the case was fixed for addressing arguments on the
application. Learned counsel for the parties, while relying upon a judgment
passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A.
Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208, made the submission
while treating the present application as an appeal, filed under Sections 372
of Cr.P.C. (which is pari materia with Section 413 of Bharatiya Nagarik
1 of 4
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the same be sent to appropriate Court for its
disposal.
3. Prior to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium
Financial's case (supra), as per judgment in case M/s Tata Steel Limited
Vs. M/s Atma Tube Produced Limited, 2013(2), R.C.R (Criminal), 1005,
rendered by Full Bench of this Court, a victim in a private complaint case
can challenge the judgment of acquittal by filing an appeal only before the
High Court, after seeking special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of
Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial's case
(supra) after comparative interpretation of under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. and
Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. observed that the victim has a right to file an
appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:
"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 Cr.P.C. 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
2 of 4
condition precedent to be fulfilled by the victim of an offence,
which expression also includes the 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 Cr.P.C. 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."
4. Thus as per the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court
in M/s. Celestium Financial's case (supra), an appeal against order of
acquittal in a proceeding under Indian Penal Code preferred by the
complainant squarely falls within the ambit of proviso of Section 372 of
3 of 4
Cr.P.C. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Rajender in
CRM-A-826 of 2025, decided on 07.07.2025 and Satish Kumar vs. Jugal
Kishore, CRM-A-2700-MA-2018, while relying upon M/s. Celestium
Financial's case (supra), has ordered to treat the application seeking leave
to file appeal as an appeal filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C.
5. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.
Celestium Financial's case (supra), a direction is given to learned Sessions
Judge, Kapurthala to treat this application/appeal as filed under Section 372
of Cr.P.C. He/she shall either decide the appeal himself/herself or entrust
the same to appropriate Court for its disposal.
6. It is clarified that nothing has been observed regarding merits
of the case and it has been left open for the consideration of the Sessions
Court concerned to consider the merits of the appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant, present in Court, directed to
inform the applicant for appearance before the Sessions Court, Kapurthala.
The parties are also directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge,
Kapurthala in person or through his counsel on 23.02.2026.
8. The Registry is directed to send the complete paper-book and
record of the case to learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala forthwith.
9. Disposed of.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(SUKHVINDER KAUR)
JUDGE
14.01.2026.
Komal
Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/ No
Whether reportable? : Yes/ No
4 of 4
