The High Court · 2025
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 s. 138
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 2(wa), 372, 378(4)
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The issue is no longer res integra. In ‘M/s Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. 2025 INSC 804: 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208’, the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that a complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act, qualifies as a…
- Para 88. Disposed of accordingly. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present : Mr. Akshay Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. ***** AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J.(ORAL)
The applicant has filed the present application seeking grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 01.08.2018 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moonak, Sangrur in a case stemming from complaint dated 12.10.2017 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter ‘NI Act’).
The limited question arising for consideration in the present proceedings is whether an appeal against an order of acquittal passed in a complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act can be entertained under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. at the instance of the complainant?
The issue is no longer res integra. In ‘M/s Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. 2025 INSC 804: 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208’, the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that a complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act, qualifies as a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C., being the person who suffers financial loss due to the dishonour of a cheque. Consequently, such a complainant is entitled to pursue an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., without the requirement of seeking special leave under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C.
Adopting a pragmatic and justice oriented approach and guided HAMANT 2025.11.19 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-2384-MA-2018 (O&M) 2 by the principle that procedural rule must serve and not obstruct the course of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct that the present appeal be treated as one authoritatively instituted under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.
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, Sangrur with a direction to treat the same as appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge may retain the said appeal on his/her Board or assign it to some other Court of competent jurisdiction.
The Registry is directed to transmit this order along with copy of the complete paper-book and return the trial Court record, if received, to the learned Sessions Judge, concerned.
Disposed of accordingly. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE
17.11.2025 Hemant Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes / No Yes / No HAMANT 2025.11.19 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 2(wa), 372, 378(4).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 17 Nov 2025. The bench was AARADHNA SAWHNEY.
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.