CRM-A/56/2017 of VISHAVNATH Vs DEVENDER AND ANOTHER

CRM-A-56-MA-2017 1 202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-56-MA-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.01.2026 Vishavanath ….Applicant. VERSUS Devender & Anr. ….Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR Present: Mr. Mittardeep Singh, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Yadav, Advocate the applicant. **** SUKHVINDER KAUR , J. (Oral) 1. The instant application has been filed under Sect ion 378(4) of Cr. P.C., seeking grant of leave to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 28.10.2016, passed by the learned J udicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal, in complaint case bearing RBT No.56 of 2016, titled as 'Vishavnath Vs. Davender & Anr’, filed under Sections 323, 452, 506/34 of IPC, whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charges for commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 452, 506 of IPC. 2. Today, the case was fixed for addressing argumen ts on the application. Learned counsel for the appellant, whi le relying upon a judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 20 8, made the submission while treating the present application a s an appeal, filed under Sections 372 of Cr.P.C. (which is pari materia with Section 413 of JYOTI 2026.01.09 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-56-MA-2017 2 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, 2 013(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 sp ecial leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr. P.C. The Hon'ble Suprem e 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 Sect ion 372 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court ha s observed as follows: “7.12 The reasons for the above distinction are not far to see and can be elaborated as follows: Firstly, the vict im of a crime must have an absolute right to prefer an appe al 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 vict im 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 crimehas the right to prefer an appeal under S ection 374 as a matter of right and not being subjected to any conditions. Similarly, a victim of a crime, whatever be the nat ure 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 ma ndating any condition precedent to be fulfilled by the victi m 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 acq uittal, the State, through the Public Prosecutor can prefer an appealJYOTI 2026.01.09 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-56-MA-2017 3 even if the complainant does not prefer such an app eal, though of course such an appeal is with the leave of the court. However, it is not always necessary for the State o r 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 S ection 378(4) of the CrPC would be contrary to what has be en intended by the Parliament by insertion of the prov iso to Section 372 of the CrPC. Fourthly, the Parliament h as not amended Section 378 to circumscribe the victim's ri ght 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 en visage a superior right for the victim of an offence to pref er 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 conspicu ous by its absence. This is because the complaint filed under that provision is in the nature of a private complaint a s per Section 200 of the CrPC 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 i s the victim of a dishonour of cheque must be construed t o 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 t he Apex Court in M/s. Celestium Financial’s case (supra), an appeal against order of acquittal in a proceeding under Indian Penal Cod e preferred by the complainant squarely falls within the ambit of prov iso of Section 372 of Cr.P.C. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court also 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), the direction is given to learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal, to treat this application /appeal as filed under JYOTI 2026.01.09 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-56-MA-2017 4 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 re garding merits of the case and it has been left open for the consi deration of the Sessions Court concerned to consider the merits of the appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant, present in Co urt, is directed to inform the appellant for appearance before the Sessions Court, Kaithal. The appellant is also directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal, in person or through their counsel on 09.02.2026. 8. The Registry is directed to send the complete pa per-book and record of the case to learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal, forthwith. 9. Disposed of. 10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, a lso stand(s) disposed of. (SUKHVINDER KAUR) 08.01.2026 JUDGE jyoti3 Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No JYOTI 2026.01.09 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document