Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
M/s. Celestium Financial – Appellant
Versus
A. Gnanasekaran Etc. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1868-1870 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.137-139/2025)
Decided On : 08-04-2025
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 372, Proviso and 378(4) – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Appeal against acquittal – Victim of an offence has right to prefer appeal under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C., irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not – Even if victim of an offence is a complainant, he can still proceed under proviso to Section 372 and need not advert to sub-section (4) of Section 378 of Cr.P.C. – Impugned common order set aside and liberty reserved to appellant to file appeal(s) having regard to proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. (Paras 10 and 11)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 2(wa) – Victim – Said expression is initially exhaustive and thereafter inclusive – Expression ‘victim’ means a person who has suffered any loss or injury – Loss or injury could be either physical, mental, a financial loss or injury – Expression injury could also be construed as a legal injury in a wider sense and not just a physical or a mental injury – Loss or injury must be caused by reason of an act or omission for which accused person has been charged – It can be both by a positive act or negatively by an omission which is at instance of accused and for which such accused has been charged – Expression ‘victim’ also includes his/her guardian or legal heir in case of demise of victim. (Paras 6.4 and 6.5)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 372, Proviso and 378(4) – Appeal against acquittal – In case of a victim who seeks to file appeal, he or she could proceed under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. in circumstances mentioned therein and need not prefer appeal by invoking Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. which is in respect of appeals to be filed by complainant – It may be that complainant is a victim in certain cases and victim has right to file appeal under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. and need not proceed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. – However, if complainant is not a victim and intends to file appeal, in such a case a complainant would have to proceed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. (Para 6.6)
(D) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 372, Proviso and 378(4) – Dishonour of cheque – Appeal against acquittal – Proviso to Section 372 does not make distinction between accused who is charged of an offence under penal law or a person who is deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of Act – Symmetrical to a victim of an offence, victim of a deemed offence under Section 138 of Act also has right to prefer appeal against any order passed by court acquitting accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing an inadequate compensation – When viewed from perspective of an offence under any penal law or a deemed offence under Section 138 of Act, right to file appeal is not circumscribed by any condition as such, so long as appeal can be premised in accordance with proviso to Section 372 which is right to file an appeal by a victim, provided circumstances which enable such a victim to file an appeal are met – Complainant under Section 138 is victim who must also have right to prefer appeal under said provision – Merely because proceeding under Section 138 of Act commences with filing of complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. by a complainant, he does not cease to be a victim inasmuch as it is only a victim of a dishonour of cheque who can file complaint – Under Section 138 of Act both complainant as well as victim are one and same person – Right to prefer appeal by an accused against conviction is not merely a statutory right but can also be construed to be a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution – If that is so, then right of a victim of an offence to prefer an appeal cannot be equated with right of State or complainant to prefer an appeal – Statutory rigours for filing of appeal by State or by a complainant against an order of acquittal cannot be read into proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. so as to restrict right of a victim to file appeal on the grounds mentioned therein, when none exists. (Paras 7.9 and 8)
Facts of the case:
Central issue arising for adjudication in instant appeals is, whether appeal would be maintainable under proviso to Section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon private complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by treating complainant in such a proceeding as a victim within meaning ascribed to the term under Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C.
Findings of Court:
Statutory rigours for filing of an appeal by State or by a complainant against an order of acquittal cannot be read into proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. so as to restrict right of a victim to file an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein, when none exists.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The right to appeal against an order of acquittal is available to the victim of an offence under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. irrespective of whether the victim is also the complainant. The victim can proceed under this proviso without needing to invoke Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. (!) (!)
The expression ‘victim’ is initially exhaustive and then inclusive, meaning it encompasses any person who has suffered loss or injury—whether physical, mental, financial, or legal—caused by the act or omission for which the accused is charged. This includes guardians or legal heirs if the victim has deceased [p_6.4][p_6.5]
The scope of the victim’s right to appeal is broad and symmetrical, whether the offence is under penal law or deemed under specific statutes such as the Negotiable Instruments Act. The right to appeal is not restricted by the nature of the offence or the manner in which proceedings are initiated, provided the circumstances for such an appeal are met [p_7.9] (!) (!)
The proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. grants victims an unconditional right to prefer an appeal against orders of acquittal, conviction for lesser offences, or inadequate compensation, without the need for special leave or prior approval from the court. This right is distinct from the conditions imposed on appeals by the State or complainants under other provisions (!) (!)
The definition of ‘victim’ includes persons who have suffered injury or loss due to acts or omissions for which the accused is charged, including legal heirs or guardians in case of death. This broad interpretation aligns with international principles recognizing victims' rights [p_6.4][p_6.5]
The legislative intent behind the recent amendments is to ensure victims have a direct and unconditioned right to appeal, reflecting a progressive, victim-centric approach to criminal justice. This right is intended to be superior and more accessible than the appeal rights of the State or complainants, especially in private complaint cases (!) (!) (!)
The right of a victim to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 is not limited by procedural restrictions such as seeking leave, which are applicable to other types of appeals, especially those initiated by the State or complainant under Section 378(4). This emphasizes the importance of victims’ rights within the criminal justice system [p_6.6][p_7.9] (!)
The amendments and legal interpretations aim to balance the rights of the accused, the victim, and the state, with a clear preference towards empowering victims and ensuring they have meaningful access to justice, including the ability to challenge acquittals directly [p_7.9] (!) (!)
The period for filing such appeals is generally within four months from the date of the order of acquittal, with provisions to consider extensions or condonation of delay, further facilitating victims’ access to justice (!) (!)
Overall, the legal framework and judicial interpretation affirm that victims, whether or not they are also complainants, possess a statutory and constitutional right to appeal acquittal orders, reinforcing their position as active participants in the criminal justice process.
JUDGMENT :
Leave granted.
2. These appeals have been preferred by the appellant against the common judgment dated 12.06.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. O.P. Nos.929, 931 and 1034 of 2024 in Crl. A. SR. Nos.1282, 1300 and 1321 of 2024.
2.1 The central issue arising for adjudication in the instant appeals is, whether an appeal would be maintainable under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC”) against an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the Act”), by treating the complainant in such a proceeding as a victim within the meaning ascribed to the term under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC.
Factual Background:
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case according to the appellant are as under:
3.1 The appellant herein is the complainant being a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of finance. The appellant had extended financial assistance to the respondents over a period of time. It is the case of the appellant that respondent No.1 was the principal borrower and in order to avail further credit, he obtained additional loans through respondent Nos.2 and 3, who acted at his behest. Respondent No.1 is stated to be carrying on a catering business under the name and style of “R.R. Caterers”.
3.2 Respondent No.1 had on earlier occasions availed several loans from the appellant. As on 27.04.2015, an outstanding sum of Rs. 16,00,000/- stood due from him. Seeking further financial accommodation, respondent No.1 along with his spouse entered into a sale agreement dated 15.05.2015 with one Mr. S. Babu, an employee of the appellant. Pursuant thereto, a further sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- was sanctioned to him carrying interest at 18% per annum.
3.3 Thereafter, on 13.05.2016, respondent No.2 availed a loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- from the appellant at an interest of 20% per annum, repayable in twelve equal monthly instalments of Rs. 1,25,000/-. Respondent No.2 made partial repayments through cash deposits dated 09.06.2016, 30.09.2016, and 15.07.2017. Subsequently, on 30.11.2016, respondent No.3 availed a loan of Rs. 12,00,000/- from the appellant, carrying interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The loan was repayable over a period of twelve months with EMIs fixed at Rs. 1,00,000/- each.
3.4 Thereafter, on 31.05.2017, respondent No.1 availed a further loan facility from the appellant to the tune of Rs. 21,00,000/-, carrying interest at 24% per annum. The interest component, amounting to Rs. 2,94,000/-, was deducted upfront, and the net sum of Rs. 18,06,000/- was disbursed to respondent No.1. The loan was repayable over a period of seven months in equated monthly instalments of Rs. 3,00,000/- each.
3.5 A few months later, on 17.07.2017, respondent No.1 secured an additional loan from the appellant in a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/-, with interest agreed at 22.5% per annum. From the sanctioned amount, Rs. 1,42,500/- was appropriated towards interest and the net principal of Rs. 13,57,500/- was determined. On the specific request of respondent No.1, one EMI of Rs. 3,00,000/- pertaining to the earlier loan was deducted and the effective disbursal was Rs. 10,57,500/-. The loan was structured to be repaid in five monthly instalments of Rs. 3,00,000/- each.
3.6 Subsequently, on 11.09.2017, respondent No.1 once again sought financial assistance and was sanctioned a further sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- carrying interest at the rate of 18% per annum. After deducting interest to an extent of Rs. 3,75,000/-, the net amount available stood at Rs. 21,25,000/-. At the instance of respondent No.1, two EMIs of Rs. 3,00,000/- each relating to earlier borrowings were adjusted and a final amount of Rs.15,25,000/- was disbursed. The loan tenure was fixed at ten months with equated monthly instalments of Rs. 2,50,000/-.
3.7 In partial discharge of his liability, respondent No.2 issued a cheque bearing No.145325 da
(1) Appeal against acquittal – Victim of an offence has right to prefer appeal under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C., irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not – Even if victim of an offen....
Victims have the statutory right to appeal acquittals under Section 372 of the CrPC, ensuring access to justice irrespective of complainant status, broadening the definition of 'victim' to encompass ....
A complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act is deemed a victim with the right to appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. without needing special leave, and the application of this ruling is specified t....
A complainant under Section 138 is deemed a victim and thus entitled to appeal against acquittal under Section 372 without seeking special leave, reflecting judicial interpretation and setting clear ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
