1. Appellant has filed this appeal under section 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure (in brief “Code”) against the order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Indore in Criminal Case No. 15815/2010 on 31.1.2014 by which acquitted the respondents from the charge under sections 341, 323 or 323/34 and 506-II of IPC.

2. The appellant has filed a private complaint against the respondents wherein the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore took cognizance for the offence under sections 341, 323 or 323/34 and 506-II of IPC and after trial, acquitted the respondents from all the charges. Being aggrieved appellant/complainant filed this appeal under section 378(4) of Code after obtaining special leave to file an appeal.

3. Respondents have raised preliminary objection that the appeal under section 378(4) of the Code is not maintainable whereas the appeal to the proviso of section 372 of Code is competent.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellant is a victim, therefore, as per the amended proviso to section 372 of the code the appellant should have filed the appeal before the Session Court and not before this Court under section 378(4) of Code. For this purpose he placed reliance on the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Gulab Singh v. Ashok Kumar, 2013(3) Crimes 493 (Raj.).

5. On the other hand learned counsel for the appellant submits that the case is instituted on a private complaint, therefore, as per the provisions of section 378(4) of the Code the appellant should have filed the appeal before the Sessions Court and not before this Court under section 378(4) of Code the appeal has been filed after obtaining special leave. As per the provisions of 372 of the Code a victim can file the appeal and the complainant is not a victim as defined in section 2(wa) of the Code. Thus, the appeal under section 378(4) of the Code is maintainable, for this purpose she placed reliance on judgment of this Court in the case of Dharamveer Singh Tomar v. Ramraj Singh Tomar 2011(2) MPLJ 643 and judgment of Chhatishgarh High Court in the case of Kailash Murarka v. K. Geet Srijan 2015 CrLJ 1627 and judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Bhajanpura Co-operative Society Limited v. Sushil Kumar 2015(1) NIJ 166 (Del).

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have considered the submissions.

7. For this purpose, I have to see the scheme, object and reasons of the amendment which is inserted by Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 2008. Before this amendment, cases which were instituted on police report the victim had no right to file an appeal against the order of the acquittal. Even the victim was not entitled to engage an advocate of his choice to assist the prosecution without the permission of the Court. Therefore the legislation thought it proper to enable him proper opportunity so he may be able to actively participate in the judicial process. Therefore, by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008, a new clause (wa) in section 2 has been inserted which is a under:-

“(wa) “Victim” means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression “victim” included his or her guardian or legal heirs”.

Inserted the proviso to section 24 which is as under:-

“Provided that the Court may permit the victim to engage and advocate of his choice to assist the prosecution under this sub-section.”

Inserted the proviso to section 372 as under:-

“Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.”

8. section 2(d) of the Code reads as under:-“Complaint means any allegation made orally or in writing to a magistrate, with a view to his