JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J. (Oral)

1. The substantive prayer made in the present appeal reads, thus:

'It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the appeal of the appellant may kindly be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment dated 05.03.2025 passed by the ld. JMIC, Mohindergarh, District Mahendergarh in Case No.NACT/90/2020, vide which the respondent has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him in a complaint filed by the appellant u/s138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the interest of justice and fair play.'

Alongwith an appeal, an application for grant of leave has also been preferred under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., 1973

2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/applicant and have perused the paper-book.

3. Before proceeding to hear the application (for grant of special leave to appeal)/appeal, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. 2025 INSC 804, relevant whereof reads, thus:

'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.

xxx xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx xxx

7.6 As already noted, the Act does not have a provision for filing of an appeal. The Act is a special enactment. In the circumstances, the CrPC, which is general in nature would have to be resorted to. The proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC considers the right of filing of an appeal from the point of view of a victim, which expression not only includes an injured victim but even the legal representatives of a deceased victim. The inclusion of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC has to be read in the context of the definition of victim in clause (wa) of Section 2 of the CrPC. The expression 'victim' as defined under the said provision, includes not only the person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by the reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged but the said expression also includes his or her guardian or legal heir.

7.7 In the context of offences under the Act, particularly under Section 138 of the said Act, the complainant is clearly the aggrieved party who has suffered economic loss and injury due to the default in payment by the accused owing to the dishonour of the cheque which is deemed to be an offence under that provision. In such circumstances, it would be just, reasonable and in consonance with the spirit of the CrPC to hold that the complainant under the Act also qualifies as a victim within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the CrPC. Consequently, such a complainant ought to be extended the benefit of the proviso to Section 372, thereby enabling him to maintain an appeal against an order of acquittal in his own right without having to seek special leave under Section 378(4) of the CrPC.

7.8 In the case of an offence alleged against an accused under Section 138 of the Act, we are of the view that the complainant is indeed the victim owing to the alleged dishonour of a cheque. In the circumstances, the complainant can proceed as per the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC and he may exercise such an option and he need not then elect to proceed under Section 378 of the CrPC.

7.9 In this context, we wish to state that the proviso to Section 372 does not make a distinction between an accused who is charged of an offence under the penal law or a person who is deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act. Symmetrical to a victim of an offence, a victim of a deemed offence under Section 138 of the Act also has the right to prefe