Victims have the right to appeal against acquittals in cheque bounce cases, even if they are not the complainants, under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL th ON THE 18 OF JULY, 2025 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6514 of 2025 ATUL BARANGE Versus NARENDRA SINGH Appearance:

Shri Ayush Choubey - Advocate for appellant.

ORDER This appeal has been filed under Section Section 419 /419(4) of BNSS by “victim” of an offence as defined under Section 138 of N.I. Act against judgment dated 29.05.2025 passed by JMFC, Timarni District Harda in SCNIA No. 386/2019 whereby respondent/accused has been acquitted of an offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that present appeal cannot be filed before Sessions Court under Proviso to Section 413 of BNSS, as in the instant case appellant's complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution whereas i n Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. , 2025 SCC Online SC 1320, complainant's complaint was dismissed on merits. Therefore, principle of law down in Celestium Financial (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case.

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.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SARSWATI

5 . The central issue arising for adjudication in Celestium Financial (supra) was, whether an appeal would be maintainable under the proviso to 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 High Court and if no such special leave was granted then his appeal Signature Not Verified Signed by: SARSWATI 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