A complainant in a cheque dishonour case who is a 'victim' due to financial loss has a substantive, independent right of appeal to the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, superseding the necessity of seeking special leave under Section 378(4).

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Code or CrPC”) / Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS' for short) by the Complainant against the impugned judgment and order whereby the learned trial Court had acquitted the respondent/s/accused of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act' for short).

2. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

3. Before entering into the merits of this case, this Court deems it proper to refer to the latest decision rendered by this Court in the case of Shivsinh Ganpatsinh Solanki V/s State of Gujarat & Anr. being Criminal Miscellaneous Application Nos. 12753 of 2019 with 12908 of 2019, wherein, after considering the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, more particularly, the judgment in the matter of M/s Celestium Financial V/s A.Gyanasekaran, reported in 2025 INSC 804, has held (in Paragraph Nos.11, 19 to 23, 31, 32, 34 43, 56, 78 to 80) as under:

“xxxxx

11. Upon a perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it becomes evident that in paragraph 7.7 the Apex Court has, in clear terms, recognized that a Complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act, having suffered financial loss and injury arising from the dishonour of a cheque, is an “aggrieved party” and, therefore, falls within the definition of a “Victim” under Section 2(wa) of the Code.

xxxxx

19. Having dealt with the first limb of the argument, the only other argument which can possibly be made is that the Victim has the option to choose the hat that he wishes to wear (i.e., that of a Victim or of a Complainant). It can be argued that if the Victim chooses to appeal as a Victim, he/she can go under Section 372 of the Code and if as a Complainant, then under Section 378 of the Code.

20. It is clear that the Code provides for two remedies. First, under Section 372 for a Victim. Second, under Section 378 (4) for a Complainant. There is no confusion if a person is either a Victim or a Complainant. There is some divergence of thought when the Victim is also the Complainant.

21. While trying to approach this issue, at a bare glance, the statutory framework appears to offer a Complainant (who is a Victim in given case) two parallel avenues of appeal (i.e., Section 372 and Section 378 ). Therefore, one may well argue that it is for the person to choose the hat that he wishes to wear to file the Appeal.

22. This argument, undoubtedly, seems attractive at first blush. However, venturing a little deeper, it turns out to be wanting. This is for several reasons which are as follows.

23. First, a Victim was given a right to file an Appeal under the Code pursuant to some object and keeping in mind some reasons thereof. Relevant extract of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Criminal Amendment Act, 2009 [Act 5 of 2009] by way of which the proviso to Section 372 of the Code was introduced, is extracted hereinbelow:

At present, the Victims are the worst sufferers in a crime and they don't have much role in the court proceedings. They need to be given certain rights and compensation, so that there is no distortion of the criminal justice system. (emphasis supplied).

xxxxx

31. Bare perusal of the language of the provision, along with the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Celestium, Mahabir (supra) and Joseph (supra) would show in certain terms that the right