IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 29.01.2026 Malkiat Singh ...Applicant.

Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents.

***

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR .......

Present: Mr. Ramandeep, Advocate for the applicant.

***

SUKHVINDER KAUR , J .

The instant application has been filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking grant of leave to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 26.04.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Samana in Criminal Complaint No.CHI-34-2014, titled as 'State Vs. Nirmal Singh and others', filed under Sections 182 and 211 of IPC, whereby the respondents were acquitted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 182 and

211 of IPC.

2. Today, the case was fixed for addressing arguments on the application. Learned counsel for the parties, while relying upon a judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208, made the submission while treating the present application as an appeal, filed under Sections 372 of Cr.P.C. (which is pari materia with Section 413 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the same be sent to appropriate Court for its disposal.

3. Prior to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial’s case (supra), as per judgment in case M/s Tata Steel Limited Vs. M/s Atma Tube Produced Limited, 2013(2), R.C.R (Criminal), 1005, rendered by Full Bench of this Court, a victim in a private complaint case can challenge the judgment of acquittal by filing an appeal only before the High Court, after seeking special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial’s case (supra) after comparative interpretation of under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. and Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. observed that the victim has a right to file an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:

“7.12 The reasons for the above distinction are not far to see and can be elaborated as follows: Firstly, the victim of a crime must have an absolute right to prefer an appeal which cannot be circumscribed by any condition precedent. In the instant case, a victim under Section 138 of the Act, i.e., a payee or the holder of a cheque is a person who has suffered the impact of the offence committed by a person who is charged of the offence, namely, the accused, whose cheque has been dishonoured. Secondly, the right of a victim of a crime must be placed on par with the right of an accused who has suffered a conviction, who, as a matter of right can prefer an appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. A person convicted of a crime has the right to prefer an appeal under Section 374 as a matter of right and not being subjected to any conditions. Similarly, a victim of a crime, whatever be the nature of the crime, unconditionally must have a right to prefer an appeal. Thirdly, it is for this reason that the Parliament thought it fit to insert the proviso to sub-section 372 without mandating any condition precedent to be fulfilled by the victim of an offence, which expression also includes the legal representatives of a deceased victim who can prefer an appeal. On the contrary, as against an order of acquittal, the State, through the Public Prosecutor can prefer an appeal even if the complainant does not prefer such an appeal, though of course such an appeal is with the leave of the court. However, it is not always necessary for the State or a complainant to prefer an appeal. But when it comes to a victim's right to prefer an appeal, the insistence on seeking special leave to appeal from the High Court under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. would be contrary to what has been intended by the Parliament by insertion of the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. Fourthly, the Parliament has not amended Section 378 to