##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7647

1 MCRC-53119-2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 28 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 53119 of 2022

RAVI SONI

Versus

SMT. RUKMANI TIWARI

Appearance:

Shri Pramod Thakre - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER

This petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment

passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Garhakota, District Sagar dated

10.08.2022 in SCNIA No.18/2018, whereby the learned trial Court has

acquitted the respondent for the charge under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881.

2 . Aforesaid criminal case was instituted on the basis of private

complaint filed by the victim/applicant.

3 . The question before this Court is whether instant petition is

covered under proviso to Section 413 of BNSS (372 of Cr.P.C.).

4 . The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra in light of the

judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Celestium Financial Vs. A.

Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 SCC Online SC 1320. The issue arose in said

adjudication 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

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH

SALUJA

Signing time: 29-01-2026

14:30:14

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7647

2 MCRC-53119-2022

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by treating the complainant as a

victim within the meaning prescribed under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C.

5. It is observed 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 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 appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC,

irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the

victim of an offence is a complainant, he can still proceed under

the proviso to Section 372 and need not advert to sub-section (4)

of Section 378 of the CrPC.”

6. Having regard to the l