IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:14.10.2025 RAJ MOHINDER PAL VERMA …. Appellant Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS …. Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Present : Mr. Hemand Bassi, Advocate and Mr. V.K.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Sheenu Sura, D.A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Shivam Sachdeva, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3.

Mr. Naba Maiban N. Singh, Advocate for-Anil Kumar Verma (through video conference).

****

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (oral)

1. The complainant assails judgment dated 24.11.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala vide which the accused-Rajesh Luthra and Madhvi Luthra, who had been summoned and had faced trial, have been acquitted.

2. The matter arises out of a private complaint for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 406, 471 read with Section 120-B of IPC instituted by the appellant wherein initially four persons had been arrayed as accused, but only two accused i.e. Rajesh Luthra and Madhvi Luthra having been summoned, the said two faced trial and were ultimately acquitted. The complainant challenged their acquittal by way of filing the instant appeal accompanied by an application seeking leave to file appeal. The said matter was heard by this Court and vide judgment dated 08.08.2023, the said appeal as well as the application were dismissed.

3. The complainant thereafter, approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by way of filing SLP (Criminal) No.2979 of 2024, wherein the following order was passed:-

“Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3 The High Court by the impugned judgment has decided an appeal against acquittal. When the High Court deals with an appeal against acquittal, it is the duty of the High Court to consider the entire prosecution evidence and to re-appreciate the same. After appreciating evidence, the High Court has to examine whether the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court is a possible finding which could have been recorded on the basis of evidence of record.

3. Unfortunately, the perusal of the impugned judgment shows that there is no consideration of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the complainant. It is very difficult to understand after reading of the judgment, why the High Court came to a particular conclusion.

4. On the above grounds, we set aside the impugned judgment dated 8th August, 2023 and restore, appeal bearing No.CRM-A-424-2022(O&M) to the file of the High Court for fresh hearing. The restored appeal shall be listed before the roster Bench on 3rd of March, 2025 in the morning. The parties represented today before this Court shall be under an obligation to appear before the roster Bench to enable the Bench to fix a date for hearing.

5. The Registry to communicate this order to Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.All question are left open will be decided by the High Court.

6. The appeal is partly allowed on above terms.

7. All pending application(s), stands disposed of.”

4. It is pursuant to the aforesaid order that the matter has been put up before this Bench.

5. In the interregnum, another development has taken place pursuant to judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 (3) RCR (Criminal) 208, inasmuch as the position of law pertaining to instituting of appeal against acquittal by the complainant/victim in the matter arising out of private complaint has been changed. In view of the ratio laid down in M/s Celestium Financial case (supra), it is the Court of Sessions where such appeal would be maintainable.

6. It is apposite to bear in mind the provisions of Section 372 and 378 Cr.P.C., which are reproduced herein under:

“372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided.— No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code by any other law for the time being in force:

Provided that the victim shall have a rig