IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 28.08.2025 AMIT ....APPELLANT V/s INSAF ALI @ KALA ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: None for the appellant/applicant.

*****

SUMEET GOEL , J. (Oral)

1. The substantive prayer made in the present appeal reads, thus:

“i) Grant leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 21.02.2025, passed by Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, acquitting the accused/respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

(ii) Set aside the impugned judgment/order and convict the accused/respondent for the offense punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as the evidence on record sufficiently establishes the commission of the offense.

iii) Direct the accused to pay the cheque amount along with interest and compensation, as per Section 138 read with Section 395 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Formerly Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), ensuring that the complainant is adequately compensated for the wrongful dishonor of the cheque.

(iv) Impose an appropriate sentence on the accused, considering the financial loss, hardship, and mental agony suffered by the complainant due to the dishonor of the cheque.

(v) Pass any other order(s) as may be deemed just, proper, and equitable in the interest of justice.”

Alongwith an appeal, an application for grant of leave has also been preferred under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., 1973

2. I have perused the paper-book.

3. Before proceeding to consider the application (for grant of special leave to appeal)/appeal, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in CRM-A-826-2025 titled as Raj Kumar vs. Rajender : 2025:PHHC:079740 wherein, this Court, while relying upon the dicta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. 2025 INSC 804 : 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208, has held that an appeal against an order of acquittal in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 preferred by the complainant, falls squarely within the purview of proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C./413 of BNSS, 2023. This judicial enunciation was predicated upon the interpretative understanding that, for the purposes of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complainant is encompassed within the expansive definition of ‘victim’ as delineated in the Cr.P.C., 1973/BNSS, 2023. Consequently, the complainant is not constrained to pursue the more stringent procedure of seeking special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., 1973/419(4) of BNSS, 2023. This Court underscored that the scope and ambit of proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C./413 BNSS are inherently broader and more accommodating when juxtaposed with the comparatively narrower confines of Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., 1973/419(4) of BNSS, 2023, which mandates the procurement of special leave from the High Court for an appeal against an acquittal in a complaint case.

However, demonstrating a profound commitment to the overarching principles of justice and a determination to preclude mere procedural technicalities from eclipsing the substantive adjudication of the case, this Court, instead of summarily dismissing the appeal on this technical infirmity, judiciously opted to relegate the appeal, along with accompanying application(s), to the concerned Sessions Court.

4. Ergo; in view of the dicta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial (supra) as also the pronouncement of this Court in Raj Kumar (supra); the present appeal, along with accompanying application(s), is disposed of as hereunder:

(i) The present appeal, along with accompanying application(s), is remitted to the learned Sessions Judge, Jind with a direction to treat the same as having been filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C., 1973/Section 413 of BNSS, 2023. The said learned Sessions Judge may entrust the appeal to himself or