[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naveen Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Another on 21 January, 2026
CRM-A-862-2023 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
206 CRM-A-862-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 21.01.2026.
Naveen Kumar ...Applicant.
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents.
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
.......
Present: Mr. Vishal Mittal, Advocate and
Mr. Esshan Garg, Advocate for the applicant.
***
SUKHVINDER KAUR, J.
The instant application has been filed under Section 378(4) of
Cr.P.C., seeking grant of leave to file an appeal against the order dated
21.04.2023 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Meham, in Criminal Complaint in COMA-98-2018 titled as 'Naveen Kumar
Vs. Vikash', filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 (for short 'N. I. Act'), whereby the aforesaid complaint had been
dismissed in default for want of complainant.
2. Today, the case was fixed for addressing arguments on the
application. Learned counsel for the applicant while relying the judgment in
Purushotam Mantri Vs. Vinod Tandon @ Hari Nath Tandon, 2009(1)
R.C.R. (Criminal) 442, submitted that dismissed in default in a complaint
case amounts to acquittal of the accused and complainant can file appeal or
revision regarding the same. He also relied upon the judgment passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran
1 of 4
Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208 and made the submission that 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
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
2 of 4
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 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. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Rajender
3 of 4
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), the appeal along with the
accompanying application is ordered to be remitted to the Court of learned
Sessions Judge, Rohtak with a direction 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 therein 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 is directed
to inform the applicant for appearance before the Sessions Court, Rohtak.
The parties are also directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge,
Rohtak in person or through his counsel on 25.02.2026.
8. The Registry is directed to send the complete paper-book and
record of the case to learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak forthwith.
9. Disposed of.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(SUKHVINDER KAUR)
JUDGE
21.01.2026.
Komal Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/ No
Whether reportable? : Yes/ No
4 of 4
