IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR

th

ON THE 26 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 15210 of 2025 RAKESH Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Ms Nandini Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Romil Verma - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

ORDER This miscellaneous petition u/S 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed for leave file appeal feeling aggrieved by the Judgment dated 25.01.2025 passed in Criminal Case No. 182/2019, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Distt. Ratlam acquitted the accused/respondent of the charges for offence punishable under Section 454 and 380 of IPC.

2. The exposition of facts giving rise to the present petition is as under:

a. Complainant Rakesh S/o Karulal Patidar has lodged a complaint on 05.01.2018 that the accused/respondent no.2 - Chunnilal alias Pappu had stolen the cheque book of Bank of India from his locker and presented one cheque bearing signature i.e. Cheque No. 000236 of Bank Of India for Rs. 4,00,000/- for encashment. Accordingly, a private complaint was filed before the Court of JMFC for offences punishable u/S 454 and 380 of IPC. The complaint was forwarded for investigation to the PS. Industrial Area, Jawra. The final report for offences punishable u/S 454 and 380 of IPC was submitted against accused Chunnilal alias Pappu.

b. The trial Court framed charges for offences punishable u/S

454 and 380 of IPC. On completion of trial, the accused/respondent Chunnilal alias Pappu was acquitted of the charges for offence punishable u/S 454 and 380 of IPC.

c. The present petition has been filed seeking leave to appeal before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner proposes to withdraw this petition in view of the law laid down in the case of M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. reported in 2025 INSC 804 with liberty to file appeal before the appellate forum.

3. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4. Section 2 (y) of the BNSS,2023 provides as under-

(y) "victim" means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission of the accused person and includes the guardian or legal heir of such victim;

5. The Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Celestium Financial (supra) held that the complainant in a complaint, who suffered economic loss or injury, is also a victim as defined in Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C corresponding to Section 2(y) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Supreme Court further held that the complainant in a complaint case is entitled to file an appeal under proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C/Section 413 of the BNSS. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:-

"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 th