SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 9476

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vinod Namdev – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. – Respondent


Advocates:
Shishir Kumar Saxena,Advocate General

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 5 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7863 of 2016 VINOD NAMDEV Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri S S Rajpoot - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Samar Ghuraiya - Public Prosecutor for the respondents/ State.

ORDER This petition under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking leave to appeal is preferred by the complainant challenging the acquittal of the respondent/accused from the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred as "138 of the Act of 1881") in criminal case No.2058/2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna, District-Guna vide judgement dated 30/01/2016.

2. The Supreme Court in the matter of M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A.

Gnanasekaran Etc. reported in 2025 INSC 804 held that the complainant in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 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 has further held that the complainant in a complaint under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top