Victims of an offence have the right to appeal against acquittals without being a complainant under new provisions of the CrPC.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL th ON THE 10 OF JULY, 2025 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4966 of 2018 LAXMAN PRASAD (DEAD) THR. LRS SAVITRI DEVI Versus MOHANLOAL Appearance:

Shri Vithal Rao - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Ashok Chakravarty - Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER This appeal has been filed under Section 378 (4) of Code of Criminal Procedure by “victim” of an offence as defined under Section 138 of N.I. Act against judgment dated 07.12.2015 passed by JMFC, Parasiya, District Chhindwara in Criminal Case No. 287/2013 whereby respondent/accused has been acquitted of an offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

2. Aforesaid criminal case was instituted on the basis of private complaint filed by the victim/appellant.

3. The question before this Court is whether instant appeal is covered under proviso to section 413 of BNSS (372 of Cr.P.C .).

4. Aforesaid issue has been recently dealt with and adjudicated by Hon’ble Apex Court in Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 SCC Online SC 1320 .

5. The central issue arising for adjudication in Celestium Financial (supra) was, whether an appeal would be maintainable under the proviso to Signature Not Verified Signed by: LALIT SINGH Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 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 .

6. Aforesaid issue has been adjudicated and answered by Hon’ble Apex Court in para 9 and 10 of Celestium Financial (supra) as under:-

“9. In the circumstances, we find that Section 138 of the Act being in the nature of a penal provision by a deeming fiction against an accused who is said to have committed an offence under the said provision, if acquitted, can be proceeded against by a victim of the said offence, namely, the person who is entitled to the proceeds of a cheque which has been dishonoured, in terms of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, as a victim. As already noted, a victim of an offence could also be a complainant. In such a case, an appeal can be preferred either under the proviso to Section 372 or under Section 378 by such a victim. In the absence of the proviso to Section 372 , a victim of an offence could not have filed an appeal as such, unless he was also a complainant, in which event he could maintain an appeal if special leave to appeal had been granted by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: LALIT SINGH High Court and if no such special leave was granted then his appeal would not be maintainable at all. On the other hand, if the victim of an offence, who may or may not be the complainant, proceeds under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, then in our view, such a victim need not seek special leave to appeal from the High Court. In other words, the victim of an offence would have the right to prefer an appeal, inter alia, against an order of acquittal in terms of the proviso to Section 372 without seeking any special leave to appeal from the High Court only on the grounds mentioned therein. A person who is a complainant under Section 200 of the CrPC who complains about the offence committed by a person who is charged as an accused under Section 138 of the Act, thus has the right to prefer an appeal as a victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC.

10. As already noted, the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC was inserted in the statute book only with effect from 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such insertion must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the victim of an offence has the right to prefer an appea