Punja In Th High Court · 2025
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 372, 378(4)
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Celestium Financial (supra), the present application seeking leave to appeal is remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge, Karnal with a direction to treat the same as filed under Section 372 of…
- Para 44. The Registry is directed to send the complete paper-book and the record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Karnal, forthwith. Disposed of, accordingly. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed
Judgment
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : None. **** HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)
The present application has ection has been preferred under Section 378(4) of th of the Code of Criminal Procedure P.C.’) cedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CR.P.C.’) seeking grant g grant of leave to appeal the judgmen .2017 dgment of acquittal dated 27.03.2017 passed by th by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Karnal, in a complaint plaint filed under nder Section 138 of Negotiable Instrum er ‘NI nstruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter ‘NI Act’).
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in s. A. urt in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekara ekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Crim erable Criminal) 208, after considerable deliberation a ation and comparative analysis of Sect r.P.C., of Sections 372 and 378(4) of Cr.P.C., concluded th ded that the victim has a right to file 72 of o file an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. befor . before the Court of Sessions. Relia lso be . Reliance in this regard can also be placed on Sa Satish Kumar Versus Jugal Kis 018 Kishor in CRM-A-2700-MA-2018 decided on 0 d on 02.07.2025. Further still, applyi ective applying the doctrine of prospective overruling, ling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court Court in Directorate of Revenue PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.05 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 Intelligence Vs. Raj Kumar Arora in SCC Online 819 has clarified that as a rule of thumb, judgments rendered shall be applicable retrospectively.
Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Celestium Financial (supra), the present application seeking leave to appeal is remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge, Karnal with a direction to treat the same as filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C and entrust it to appropriate Court for its disposal on merits.
The Registry is directed to send the complete paper-book and the record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Karnal, forthwith. Disposed of, accordingly. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed
of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE August 04, 2025 P.C Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Yes/No Whether Reportable. : PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.05 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 372, 378(4); Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 04 Aug 2025. The bench was HARPREET SINGH BRAR.
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.