[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shiv Narain vs Vikas Bhardwa And Anr on 19 March, 2026
Author: Gurvinder Singh Gill
Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-AD-282-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-19.03.2026
Shiv Narain ... Appellant
Versus
Vikas Bhardwaj and another ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI
Present:- Mr. Kamal Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Tarun Jindal, Advocate with
Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents.
*****
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral)
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the complainant assailing judgment
dated 08.12.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kurukshetra, whereby while disposing of his complaint under Sections 467,
468, 471, 474, 420 and 120-B of IPC filed against respondents No.1 to 6, the
trial Court acquitted them of all the charges framed against them.
2. Today, at the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant while referring to
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s Celestium Financial Vs. A.
Gnanasekaran, 2025 (3) RCR (Criminal) 208, submitted that in view of the
law laid down in the said judgment, the instant appeal be transmitted to the
Court of Sessions at Kurukshetra.
3. We have considered the aforesaid submission.
1 of 5
CRM-AD-282-2019 (O&M) (2)
4. Before proceeding to examine the cited judgment, it is apposite to bear in
mind the provisions of Section 372 and 378 Cr.P.C., which are reproduced
herein under:
"372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided.-- No appeal shall lie from any
judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code
by any other law for the time being in force:
Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any
order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser
offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to
the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of
such Court.
xxx xxx xxx
378. Appeal in case of acquittal.--(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section
(2), and subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (5),--
(a) the District Magistrate may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor
to present an appeal to the Court of Session from an order of acquittal
passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non bailable
offence;
(b) the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor
to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate
order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court not
being an order under clause (a) or an order of acquittal passed by the
Court of Session in revision.
(2) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case in which the offence has
been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment constituted
under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or by
any other agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under
any Central Act other than this Code, the Central Government may, subject
to the provisions of sub-section (3), also direct the Public Prosecutor to
present an appeal--
(a) to the Court of Session, from an order of acquittal passed by a
Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence;
(b) to the High Court from an original or appellate order of an acquittal
passed by any Court other than a High Court not being an order under
2 of 5
CRM-AD-282-2019 (O&M) (3)
clause (a) or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in
revision.
(3) No appeal to the High Court under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be
entertained except with the leave of the High Court.
(4) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint
and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this
behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the
complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court.
(5) No application under sub-section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal
from an order of acquittal shall be entertained by the High Court after the
expiry of six months, where the complainant is a public servant, and sixty
days in every other case, computed from the date of that order of acquittal.
(6) If, in any case, the application under sub-section (4) for the grant of special
leave to appeal from an order of acquittal is refused, no appeal from that
order of acquittal shall lie under sub-section (1) or under subsection (2)."
5. Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s Celestium Financial's case (supra) while
interpreting Sections 372 and 378(4) Cr.P.C. held that the complainant in a
private complaint has to be treated as a 'victim' and consequently, in terms of
provisions of Section 372 Cr.P.C. has a right to file an appeal. The relevant
extract from the cited judgment is reproduced herein under:
"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 47 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.
3 of 5
CRM-AD-282-2019 (O&M) (4)
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 48 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 49
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."
6. This Court in Dharampal Vs. State of Haryana & others, (CRM-A-489-MA-
2017 decided on 11.08.2025) and Mahender Singh Vs. Sumesh Pal (CRM-A-
192-2020 decided on 08.08.2025) while following the judgment in M/s
Celestium Financial's case (supra) has ordered for transmitting the complete
paper-books and record of appeal/s arising out of complaint/s, which had
4 of 5
CRM-AD-282-2019 (O&M) (5)
been instituted in this Court alongwith an application for leave to file an
appeal.
7. The instant case had arisen out of a private complaint instituted in the Court
of learned Magistrate, wherein the Magistrate recorded the findings of
acquittal of respondents No.1 to 6. Consequently, in terms of ratio of
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in M/s Celestium Financial's
case (supra), the complainant has to be treated as a 'victim' and resultantly
would have a right in terms of Section 372 Cr.P.C. to file an appeal to the
Court where an appeal against conviction would be maintainable.
8. Since, in case the accused had been convicted, it is the Court of Sessions
where an appeal would have been maintainable, an appeal against acquittal
would be maintainable before the same Court of Sessions. Rather, Section
372 Cr.P.C. vests the victim with an absolute right to institute appeal, whereas
under Section 378 Cr.P.C., the complainant is required to seek leave to
appeal. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to transmit the complete file of
the instant appeal alongwith its record, if any, to the Court of Sessions at
Kurukshetra. Learned Sessions Judge concerned shall either try the appeal
himself or entrust the same to any other Court competent to hear appeal, as
deemed appropriate. Complainant to appear before the Court of Sessions at
Kurukshetra on 20.05.2026.
9. Disposed of accordingly.
( GURVINDER SINGH GILL )
JUDGE
19.03.2026 ( RAMESH KUMARI )
pooja saini JUDGE
Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
5 of 5
