IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-27160-2024 in/and CRM-A-2802-2019 Date of Decision: 19.09.2025 Poonam ….. Applicant/appellant V/S Sandeep Kumar ……. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. D.S. Randhawa, Advocate, for Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant.

Ms. Charanpreet Kaur Ahluwalia, Advocate, for Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondent.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

CRM-27160-2024

1. For the good and valid reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed, and the order dated 03.07.2024 is recalled, and the appeal is restored at its original number.

CRM-A-2802-2019

2. The instant application, seeking grant of leave, is directed against the order dated 19.10.2019, rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate I^st Class, Gurdaspur, whereby, the accused (respondent herein) was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘N.I. Act’).

3. Before proceeding to hear the application for grant of leave to appeal, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case titled s M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 (3) RCR (Criminal) 208, the relevant part is extracted hereinafter:

2.1 The central issue arising for adjudication in the instant appeals is, whether an appeal would be maintainable under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC”) against an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the Act”), by treating the complainant in such a proceeding as a victim within the 2 meaning ascribed to the term under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC xx xx xx xx xx xx

7.6 As already noted, the Act does not have a provision for filing of an appeal. The Act is a special enactment. In the circumstances, the CrPC, which is general in nature would have to be resorted to. The proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC considers the right of filing of an appeal from the point of view of a victim, which expression not only includes an injured victim but even the legal representatives of a deceased victim. The inclusion of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC has to be read in the context of the definition of victim in clause (wa) of Section 2 of the CrPC. The expression ‘victim’ as defined under the said provision, includes not only the person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by the reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged but the said expression also includes his or her guardian or legal heir.

7.7 In the context of offences under the Act, particularly under Section 138 of the said Act, the complainant is clearly the aggrieved party who has suffered economic loss and injury due to the default in payment by the accused owing to the dishonour of the cheque which is deemed to be an offence under that provision. In such circumstances, it would be just, reasonable and in consonance with the spirit of the CrPC to hold that the complainant under the Act also qualifies as a victim within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the CrPC. Consequently, such a complainant ought to be extended the benefit of the proviso to Section 372, thereby enabling him to maintain an appeal against an order of acquittal in his own right without having to seek special leave under Section 378(4) of the CrPC. 7.8 In the case of an offence alleged against an accused under Section 138 of the Act, we are of the view that the complainant is indeed the victim owing to the alleged dishonour of a cheque. In the circumstances, the complainant can proceed as per the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC and he may exercise such an option and he need not then elect to proceed under Section 378 of the CrPC.

7.9 In this context, we wish to state that the proviso to Section 372 does not make a distinction between an a