IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

226 CRM-A-1729-2023(O&M)

Date of decision : 11.11.2025 Ashok Kumar (since deceased) through LRs ... Applicant Versus Subhash Chand .. Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.

***

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

CRM-51851-2023 This application has been filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 22 days in filing the appeal.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 22 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

Main application:

1. The present application has been preferred under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking grant of leave to appeal of the judgment of acquittal dated 04.09.2023 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sri Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar, Punjab in the complaint case filed under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent, in order to discharge his liability, had issued cheque bearing No. 185866 dated 31.08.2012 amounting to Rs. 9,00,000/- drawn at Taqkhatgarh which was dishonoured with the remarks ‘ Not Clearing Not Transferable’. Consequently, the complaint under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was filed against the respondent which was dismissed by learned trial Court vide judgment dated 04.09.2023 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 Section 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 matter 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 conditions. 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 insert 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 Parliament by insertion of the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.

Fourthly, the Parliament has not amended Section 378 to circumscribe 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 gro