RAGHUBIRSINGH v. SANJAYGUPTA
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 2(wa), 378(4)
Judgment
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI+CRL.A.266/2018RAGHUBIRSINGH.....AppellantThrough: NoneversusSANJAYGUPTA.....RespondentThrough: NoneCORAM:HON'BLEMR.JUSTICEMANOJKUMAROHRIORDER%16.10.20251.ThepresentappealhasbeenfiledunderSection378(4)Cr.P.C.bytheappellant/complainantagainstthejudgementdated29.09.2014passedbylearnedJMFC,NIAct, DwarkaCourtsinthecasebearingCCNo.4024/13titledas‘RAGHUBIRSINGHv.SANJAYGUPTA,videwhichtherespondentwasacquittedoftheoffenseunderSection138NIAct. TheappellanthadapproachedthisCourtvideCRL.L.P.No.46/2015seekingleavetoappealandthesamewasgrantedbythisCourtvideorderdated21.02.2018,followingwhichtheappealsweredulyadmitted.
TheappellantisthecomplainantunderSection138oftheNIActwhoisaggrievedbythedishonourofthechequesstatedlyissuedbytherespondent. Thetrialwhichwasinitiatedonthebasisofhiscomplainthasculminatedinafindingofacquittalforrespondentvidetheimpugnedjudgement. Naturally, theappellantisaggrievedbythesaiddecisionandwantstochallengethesame.
Duringthecourseofproceedings, theattentionofthisCourtisdrawntotherecentdecisionoftheSupremeCourtinCelestiumFinancialvsA. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/11/2025 at 11:20:34 Gnanasekaranetc, reportedas2025SCCOnLineSC1320wherein, ithasbeenheldthatthecomplainantunderSection138NIAct, whosuffersfinanciallossandinjuryonaccountofthedishonourofcheque, wouldqualifyasavictimwithinthemeaningofSection2(wa)Cr.P.C.ItwasfurtherheldthatsuchacomplainantcouldmaintainanappealunderprovisotoSection372CrPCinhisownright, withoutcomplyingwiththerigoursofSection378(4)CrPC.Therelevantportionisextractedhereunder:-“7.7InthecontextofoffencesundertheAct, particularlyunderSection138ofthesaidAct, thecomplainantisclearlytheaggrievedpartywhohassufferedeconomiclossandinjuryduetothedefaultinpaymentbytheaccusedowingtothedishonourofthechequewhichisdeemedtobeanoffenceunderthatprovision.
Insuchcircumstances, itwouldbejust, reasonableandinconsonancewiththespiritoftheCrPCtoholdthatthecomplainantundertheActalsoqualifiesasavictimwithinthemeaningofSection2(wa)oftheCrPC.Consequently, suchacomplainantoughttobeextendedthebenefitoftheprovisotoSection372,therebyenablinghimtomaintainanappealagainstanorderofacquittalinhisownrightwithouthavingtoseekspecialleaveunderSection378(4)oftheCrPC.xxx7.9Inthiscontext, wewishtostatethattheprovisotoSection372doesnotmakeadistinctionbetweenanaccusedwhoischargedofanoffenceunderthepenallaworapersonwhoisdeemedtohavecommittedanoffenceunderSection138oftheAct. Symmetricaltoavictimofanoffence, avictimofadeemedoffenceunderSection138oftheActalsohastherighttopreferanappealagainstanyorderpassedbythecourtacquittingtheaccusedorconvictingforalesseroffenceorimposinganinadequatecompensation. WhenviewedfromtheperspectiveofanoffenceunderanypenallaworadeemedoffenceunderSection138oftheAct, therighttofileanappealisnotcircumscribedbyanyconditionassuch, solongastheappealcanbepremisedinaccordancewithprovisotoSection372whichistherighttofileanappealbyavictim, providedthecircumstanceswhichenablesuchavictimtofileanappealaremet.
ThecomplainantunderSection138isthevictimwhomustalsohavetherighttopreferanappealunderthesaidprovision. MerelybecausetheproceedingunderSection138oftheActcommenceswiththefilingofacomplaintunderSection200oftheCrPCbyacomplainant, hedoes This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/11/2025 at 11:20:34 notceasetobeavictiminasmuchasitisonlyavictimofadishonourofchequewhocanfileacomplaint. Thus, under Section138oftheActboththecomplainantaswellasthevictimareoneandthesameperson.”
Todiscusstheimplicationsoftheaforesaiddecision, itwouldbeprudenttofirstanalysethestatutorymatrix. ChapterXXIXoftheCr.P.C.containstheprovisionsgoverningappeals. Section372laysdown, inunequivocalterms, thatappealscanonlybefiledinaccordancewiththeCrPCoranyotherlawinforce. Section374dealswithappealsfromconviction, whichwearenotconcernedwithpresently. Section378laysdowntheproceduretobefollowedincasesofappealsfromacquittals. Sub-section(4)ofthesaidprovisioninparticular, dealswithappealsfromacquittalsincaseswhichwereinstitutedoncomplaints, suchasthoseunderSection138oftheNIAct. Insuchacase, theaggrievedcomplainanthastoapplybeforetheHighCourtforaspecialleavetoappeal. IftheHighCourtgrantsit, thecomplainantcanpresentsuchappealbeforetheHighCourt. Section378(5)providesfortheperiodoflimitationforfilingsuchapplicationforleavetoappeal, and Section378(6)statesthatiftheHighCourtrefusesthespecialleavetoappeal, noappealwouldliefromthatorderofacquittalunderSection378(1)or(2).
Acarefulreadingoftheaboveprovisionswouldshowthattherightofthecomplainanttopreferanappealagainsttheorderofacquittaliscircumscribedbycertainconditionsprecedent. However, ifthecomplainantundertheNIActisalsoheldtobea‘victim’,thenalltherightsavailabletothevictimbytheCodewouldalsobeextendedtosuchcomplainant, includingaseparaterighttoappeal. Beforediscussingthepossibleconsequencesoftheabovefinding, itwouldbepertinenttounderstandhow This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/11/2025 at 11:20:34 1SLP(Crl.)No.(s)9888/2024,decidedon14.07.2025theCodedefinesandprovidesforthevictim.
Section2(wa)ofCr.P.C.definesvictiminthefollowingfashion:-“victim” meansapersonwhohassufferedanylossorinjurycausedbyreasonoftheactoromissionforwhichtheaccusedpersonhasbeenchargedandtheexpression“victim” includeshisorherguardianorlegalheir; ThisdefinitionwasaddedtotheCodewitheffectfrom31.12.2009.ThiswasaccompaniedbyaslewofvictimcentricchangestotheCode, suchasthevictimcompensationschemeinSection357Aand357B,freemedicalaidtothevictimsofcertainoffencesunderSection357C,etc. Oneofthemostimportantrightswhichhasbeenprovidedtothevictimsistherighttoappeal, whichhasbeeninsertedasaprovisotoSection372CrPC.Itreadsasunder:-
ProvidedthatthevictimshallhavearighttopreferanappealagainstanyorderpassedbytheCourtacquittingtheaccusedorconvictingforalesseroffenceorimposinginadequatecompensation, andsuchappealshalllietotheCourttowhichanappealordinarilyliesagainsttheorderofconvictionofsuchCourt.
Acarefulreadingoftheaboveprovisowouldshowthatthevictimcanappealfromthreetypesoforders:a)anorderofacquittal,b)aconvictionforalesseroffenceorc)imposinginadequatecompensation. Italsostatesthatsuchappealshalllietothecourttowhichanappealordinarilyliesagainsttheorderofconvictionofsuchcourt. Section372isaself-containedandindependentprovisionwhichisnottobereadconjointlywithanyotherprovision, includingSection378Cr.P.C.ItappliestoacquittalsfrombothTrialCourtandAppellateCourtandtheappealwouldlieinthefirsthierarchicalsuperiorcourt. (Ref: AsianPaintslimitedv. RamBabu&Anr1, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/11/2025 at 11:20:34 22025SCCOnLineSC184Mahabirv. StateofHaryana2)
Introductionofthisprovisodoes, ineffect, twothings. One, itprovidesthevictimanindividualrighttoappealagainstanorderofacquittalwhichisdistinctfromtherightprovidedtothecomplainantunderSection378(4)Cr.P.Casinthiscase, nospecialleavetoappealneedstobeobtainedfromtheHighCourt. Secondly, thereisadifferenceintheforumtowhichappealscanbepreferred. WhileunderSection378(4)Cr.P.C,aftergrantingspecialleavetoappeal, the HighCourtwouldheartheappeal. However, incaseofanappealpreferredbythevictimunderSection372CrPC,thesameliesbeforetheCourttowhichanappealordinarilyliesagainsttheorderofconvictionofsuchCourt. Section143oftheNIActstatesthatalloffencesunderChapterXVIIoftheAct, includinganoffenceunderSection138shallbetriedbyaJudicialMagistrateofFirstClassorbyaMetropolitanMagistrate. Anappealagainstconviction, andthusanappealpreferredbythevictim, wouldliebeforetheSessionsCourt.
Thereareanumberofreasonsforthisdifferenceinthemechanismforavictimandacomplainant. RightsofavictimareplacedonparwiththerightsoftheaccusedwhosuffersaconvictionandasamatterofrightcanpreferanappealunderSection374oftheCrPC,withoutbeingsubjecttoanyconditions. Thevictim’srighttopreferanappealisalsoabsolute, asisreflectedfromthelanguageoftheprovisotoSection372CrPC.ItisalsoworthnotingthattheparliamenthasnotamendedSection378CrPCtocircumscribethevictim’sappealwiththesimilarlimitationsasthatofthecomplainant.
InlightoftheSupremeCourt'srecentclarificationofthelegal This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/11/2025 at 11:20:34 3decidedon23.07.2025inCRL.L.P.215/2021position, itisnowevidentthattheappellant, beingthecomplainantunderSection138ofNIAct, isalsoentitledtofileanappealagainsttheimpugnedjudgmentofacquittalbeforetheSessionsCourt, sinceheisconsideredtobeavictim. IfthisCourtweretoproceedtohearanddecidetheappealatthisstage, itcoulddeprivethepartiesofanavailableforumi.e.,this Court, forfurtherchallenge.
ACo-ordinateBenchofthisCourtinVijenderSinghv. MahenderPal@Bindu3whileplacingrelianceonCelestiumFinancial(Supra),hadrelegatedthepartiestotheSessionsCourt. ThedifferencesintheremediesavailableunderSection378(4)andprovisotoSection372CrPCwerealsodiscussed. Therelevantportionisextractedhereunder:-
21. IthasbeenarguedonbehalfofthePetitionerthatinCelestiumFinancial,(supra)the ApexCourthasgivenanoptiontotheComplainanttoAppealeitherunderSection372Cr.P.C.oravailtheremedyunderSection378(4)Cr.P.C.22.Thisargumentistotallywithoutanybasisfortheanomalyinadoptingthisapproachisevidentfromthefactthatincase, the LeavetoAppealisdeniedunderSection378(4)Cr.P.C,the ComplainantlosesachancetoagitatehisAppealonmeritsasamatterofrightinthefirstAppeal. 23. SimilarfactswereinvolvedinCelestiumFinancial,(supra)wherebytheApexCourtwhilesetting-asidetheOrderdismissingtheLeavetoAppeal, haddirectedthattheFirstAppealasamatterofrightbefiledunderprovisotoSection372Cr.P.C.24.ThesecondaspectoftheargumentisthatwhileanAppealunderprovisotoSection372Cr.P.Cisamatterofright, butunderSection378(4)Cr.P.C.,Leavehastobesought. Thetworemediescannotbeequatedasanalternatetoeachother. 25. ThethirdaspectisthatbyconferringarightofFirstAppealasamatterofright, hewouldhaveanoptiontofurtherchallengeitbywayofRevisionorasperlaw. IfSection378(4)Cr.P.C.isinvokedbytheComplainant, thenheloseshisrightofFirstAppeal. ThecontentionsoraisedonbehalfoftheComplainantis, therefore, withoutanymerit. 26. Itisthus, heldthataComplainantinaComplaintunderSection This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/11/2025 at 11:20:34 4Decidedon28.07.2025inCRL.A.783/20185decidedon11.08.2025inCrl.A337/202562025SCCOnLineAP281572025SCCOnLineMP477982025SCCOnLineMP48189decidedon21.07.2025inCriminalAppealNo.11872of202210decidedon16.07.2025inACQANo.340of201811decidedon16.07.2025inACQANo.198of201912decidedon31.07.2025inCRL.A.No.20021/201813decidedon23.07.2025inCRL.A.No.146/2015138ofN.I.Act, indeedisavictim, whohasasubstantialrighttoAppealunderprovisotoSection372Cr.P.C.totheCourt, whichisimmediatelysuperiorinhierarchy. ThisimpliesthattherighttoAppealagainsttheJudgmentofacquittalbythelearnedMetropolitanMagistrate, inthisCaseunderSection138ofN.I.Act, liesbeforetheCourtofSessions.
OtherbenchesofthisCourtinKrishanLalv. WasimKhan4andGirishRehaniv.M/sKeltechInfrastructureLtd.&Ors.5incaseswheretheleavetoappealunderSection378(4)Cr.P.C.hadalreadybeengranted, keepinginviewtheimportofthedecisioninCelestiumFinancial(Supra),transferredtheappealtotheCourtofSessions.
SimilarviewhasbeentakenbytheHighCourtofAndhraPradeshinCharbelIndiav. StateofAndhraPradesh6,HighCourtofMadhyaPradeshinManoramaKankanev. NarendraKumarShukla7,LateKisanSewaKendrav. PritamSingh8,Smt. UrmitMadrahv. SamarpanJain9,HighCourtofChattisgarhinNeelamSahuv. NaradNagwanshi10andSmt. KirtiKurianv. AjaySingh11;and KarnatakaHighCourtinSidagondappav. ShafiAhammad12andSriTHLenkappav. SriSanjay&Anr.1313.AnoverallassessmentoftheCatenaofdecisionsdiscussedhereinaboverevealsthattheCelestiumFinancial(Supra)hasbeenrelieduponbythisCourtaswellotherHighCourtsacrossthecountry, torelegatethepartiesbacktotheSessionsCourtwithdirectionstotheCourtto This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/11/2025 at 11:20:34 considertheseappealsfiledunderSection378(4)Cr.P.CasiftheyhadbeenfiledunderSection372Cr.P.C.ThisCourtfeelsnoreasontotakeacontraryviewinthepresentcase.
TheofficenoteshowsthattheCourtnoticehasbeenservedupontheappellant, however, despiteservice, noneappearsfortheappellant.
Consideringtheabove, itisdeemedfittodirectthatthepresentappealbetransferredtotheconcernedAppellateCourtofSessionsandbeconsideredasanappealundertheprovisotoSection413ofBNSS(formerlySection372ofCrPC)andnumberedaccordingly.
TheRegistryisdirectedtotransferentirerecordofthecaseincludingtherequisitionedcopiesofTCR,totheconcernedPrincipalDistrict&SessionsJudge, whomayassignittotheconcernedAppellateCourt/learnedASJhavingthejurisdictionandforwhichpurpose, itwouldbelistedbeforetheconcernedPrincipalDistrict&SessionsJudge, atthefirstinstance, on03.12.2025fordirections.
IncasethereareapplicationspendingforCondonationofDelay, thesamebealsotransferredtobeconsideredbythelearnedASJinaccordancewithlaw.
Consideringthatthematterhasbeenpendingforconsiderabletime, learnedAppellateCourtisrequestedtomakeanendeavourtodisposethematterasexpeditiouslyaspossible.
ItismadeclearthatthisCourthasnotmadeanyobservationsastothemeritsofthecaseandallrightsandcontentionsofthepartiesareleftopentobeagitatedbeforetheCourtconcerned.
AcopyoftheorderbesenttotheconcernedPrincipalDistrictandSessionsJudgefornecessaryinformationandcompliance. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/11/2025 at 11:20:34 MANOJKUMAROHRI,JOCTOBER16,2025sn
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.