IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-2000-2019 Date of decision: 24.03.2026 RAJINDER KAUR ….Appellant Versus PUSHPINDER SINGH ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the appellant.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present application has been filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking to challenge the order dated 19.12.2018 passed by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi, whereby, the complaint under Sections 494, 420, 120-B IPC filed by the applicant- petitioner was dismissed against the respondents who were acquitted therein.

2. The limited question arising for consideration in the present proceedings is whether an appeal against an order of acquittal can be entertained under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. at the instance of the complainant?

3. The issue is no longer res integra. In M/s Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.2025(3) RCR (Criminal)208 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“8. The right to prefer an appeal is no doubt a statutory right and the right to prefer an appeal by an accused against a conviction is not merely a statutory right but can also be construed to be a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. If that is so, then the right of a victim of an offence to prefer an appeal cannot be equated with the right of the State or the complainant to prefer an appeal. Hence, the statutory rigours for filing of an appeal by the State or by a complainant against an order of acquittal cannot be read into the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC so as to restrict the right of a victim to file an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein, when none exists.

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