IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

274 CRR-1316-2015 (O&M)

Date of decision: 29.08.2025 Gurmeet Singh ...Petitioner Versus Balraj Singh Sidhu and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Nachattar Singh, Advocate for Mr. L. S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

M ANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12.02.2015, passed by the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moonak in case titled as Gurmeet Singh vs. Balraj Singh Sidhu and others, filed under Sections 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 120, 167, 193, 196, 199, 201, 307, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 336, 337, 341, 342, 345, 346, 352, 355, 356, 357, 363, 365, 379, 382, 388, 389, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 500, 506 and 120-B of IPC, whereby the aforesaid complaint had been dismissed, thereby acquitting the respondents/accused of the aforesaid offences. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon a recent pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208, has submitted that by directing the present petition as an appeal, filed under Sections 372 of Cr.P.C. (which is pari materia with Section 413 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the same be sent to appropriate Court for its disposal.

3. In M/s. Celestium Financial’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has interpreted Sections 372 and 378(4) of Cr.P.C. and has observed that the victim in a private complaint case has a right to file an appeal, under Section 372 of Cr.P.C., against the order of acquittal before the Court of Sessions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:

“7.12 The reasons for the above distinction are not far to see and can be elaborated as follows:

Firstly, the victim of a crime must have an absolute right to pre- fer an appeal which cannot be circumscribed by any condition precedent. In the instant case, a victim under Section 138 of the Act, i.e., a payee or the holder of a cheque is a person who has suffered the impact of the offence committed by a person who is charged of the offence, namely, the accused, whose cheque has been dishonoured.

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 sub- jected 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 con- dition 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 com-

plainant to prefer an appeal. But when it comes to a victim's right to prefer an appeal, the insistence on seeking special leave to ap- peal 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 CrPC.

Fourthly, the Parliament has not amended Section 378 to cir- cumscribe 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