IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 11.11.2025 Gurmit Kaur Bains (Since Deceased) ... Applicant Versus Ujjal Singh .. Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. R.K.Dogra, Advocate for the applicant.

***

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

1. The present application has been preferred under Section 419(4) BNSS, 2023 seeking grant of leave to appeal of the judgment of acquittal dated 16.10.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, HCS, Chandigarh in the complaint case filed under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the accused -Ujjal Singh forged signatures of the applicant on a consent statement dated 14.04.2006, thereby fraudulently withdrawing Rs. 17,997/- from her mother’s post office saving account. Consequently, the complaint under Sections 420,467,468 and 120-B of IPC was filed against the respondent which was dismissed by learned trial Court vide judgment dated 16.10.2024 and the accused was acquitted. Feeling aggrieved with the said finding, the present application seeking grant of leave to appeal has been preferred.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have perused the material available on record.

4. Before proceeding to hear the application (for grant of leave to appeal)/appeal, it is important to decide whether the right of the victim to file an appeal against acquittal in a complaint case would fall under Section 372 or Sec-

tion 378(4) of Cr.P.C.

5. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208, had laid comprehensive interpretation of Sections 372 and 378(4) of Cr.P.C. and had concluded that the victim has a right to file an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:-

"7.12 xxxxxxx 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 mat- ter of right can prefer an appeal under Section 374 of the CrPC. 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 con- ditions. 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 in- sert 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 CrPC would be contrary to what has been intended by the Parlia-

ment by insertion of the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.

Fourthly, the Parliament has not amended Section 378 to circum- scribe the victim's right to prefer an appeal just as it has with regard to a complainant or the State filing an appeal. On the other hand, the Parliament has inserted the proviso to Section 372 so as to envisage a superior right for the victim of an offence to prefer an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein as compared to a complainant.

Fifthly, the involvement of the State in respect of an offence under Section 138 of the Act is conspicuous by its absence. This is because the complaint filed under that provision is in the nature of a private complaint as per Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 143 of the Act by an express intention incorporates the