CHANDIGARH Virender Singh Rajesh Singadia CRM-A-1669-MA-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 13 v. Rajesh Singadia’, whereby the complaint filed by & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the present application is disposed of by
Provisions considered
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ss. 138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 147
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 372, 378(4)
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 413
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. After encapsulating in detail the provisions of Sections 2(d), (n) & (wa), 24, 200, 372, 377, 378, 386 of the Cr.P.C.; Sections 138, 139, 141, 142, 143 and 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; and the earlier view point of the Hon’ble Supreme…
- Para 66. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of by directing the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad, to treat the present leave to appeal as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 413 of BNSS, 2023) and entrust the same to any appropriate…
- Para 99. disposed of. Disposed of accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands ( SANJAY VASHISTH ) JUDGE August 13, 2025 Pkapoor Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes No PRASHANT KAPOOR 2025.08.13 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Dr. Deepak Jindal, Advocate, for the applicant. SANJAY VASHISTH, J. ***
Applicant – Virender Singh has filed the present application seeking grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated
12.06.2017, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, in Complaint case bearing No. RBT-193, CIS No. NACT-516/2016, instituted on 27.01.2016/05.05.2017, under Section(s) 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, titled as ‘Virender Singh v. Rajesh Singadia’, whereby the complaint filed by the applicant(s) herein has been dismissed by acquitting the accused.
Shorn off the factual matrix of the present case, it is suffice to notice that in the recent mandate of law laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court, in the case of M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran etc. [Criminal Appeal Nos. 1868-70 of 2025, decided on 08.04.2025, reported as 2025 (3) RCR (Criminal) 208 : Law Finder Doc Id # 2737710 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320], their Lordships’ have answered the issue in affirmative that whether an appeal would be maintainable under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 413 of BNSS, 2023), against an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon a private complaint, by treating the complainant in such a proceeding as a ‘victim’ within the meaning ascribed to the term under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.-C. PRASHANT KAPOOR 2025.08.13 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CRM-A-1669-MA-2017 (O&M) 2
After encapsulating in detail the provisions of Sections 2(d), (n) & (wa), 24, 200, 372, 377, 378, 386 of the Cr.P.C.; Sections 138, 139, 141, 142, 143 and 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; and the earlier view point of the Hon’ble Supreme Court taken in the case of Mallikarjun Kodagali (dead) represented through Legal representative v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752, an ongoing debate whether the right of the victim to file an appeal against acquittal in a complaint case would fall under Section 372 or Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., has been put to rest. Succinctly, in Celestium Financial’s case (supra) it has been held that the ‘victim’ has a right to file an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions.
It is apposite to mention here that the judgment in the case of Celestium Financial (supra) has been followed and relied upon by this Court in the case of M/s Associated Road Carriers Limited v. Manjit Singh and others (CRM-A-885-MA-2013, decided on
07.07.2025) as well as by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Satish Kumar v. Jugal Kishor (CRM-A-2700-MA-2018, decided on
02.07.2025).
Having gone through the recent mandate of Hon’ble the Apex Court in Celestium Financial’s case (supra), and the view taken by this Court in the case of M/s Associated Road Carriers Limited (supra) as well as by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Satish Kumar (supra), there exists no ground to take a different view in the present case.
Operative part
Accordingly, the present application is disposed of by directing the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad, to treat the present leave to appeal as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 413 of BNSS, 2023) and entrust the same to any appropriate Court to try the same. The concerned Court shall decide the appeal on merits as per law, as expeditiously as possible. Since similar directions are being passed by this Court in number of cases, the concerned Appellate Court need not to adhere to the PRASHANT KAPOOR 2025.08.13 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement CRM-A-1669-MA-2017 (O&M) 3 delay aspect, if any, involved in the case, for the purpose of considering the issue raised in the appeal and its disposal on merit.
The Registry is directed to transmit this order alongwith copy of the complete paper-book of this case, as also return the record of the Trial Court, if received, to the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad, forthwith.
disposed of. Disposed of accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands ( SANJAY VASHISTH ) JUDGE August 13, 2025 Pkapoor Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes No PRASHANT KAPOOR 2025.08.13 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the present application is disposed of by
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — ss. 138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 147; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 372, 378(4); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 413.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 13 Aug 2025. The bench was SANJAY VASHISTH.
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.