REPORTABLE Judgment reserved on: 15.07.2025 Judgment delivered on: 09.09.2025 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.306 of 2016 (Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C)

Anil Bisht --Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand & another --Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Karan Anand, learned counsel for the applicant.

Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General along with Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State.

Mr. Shivam Raturi, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

By means of present C482 application, applicant has put to challenge the impugned order dated 18.02.2016 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.03 of 2015, V. Industries Proprietor vs. Anil Bisht and another, pending in the court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate-1^st, Dehradun under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act, 1881”.)

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 had instituted a criminal complaint under the Act, 1881 against the applicant before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Dehradun. After considering the evidence, the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Dehradun, vide order dated 18.11.2024, dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent no.2 preferred an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2015. The applicant raised objections regarding the maintainability of the appeal, contending that such an appeal could not be filed under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. against an acquittal in a complaint case. However, by order dated 18.02.2016, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the objections and held that the appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. was maintainable. Hence, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant vehemently contends that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun is patently illegal and unsustainable in law. It is submitted that an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. is available only to a "victim" in cases instituted upon a police report, and the said provision does not extend to complaint cases filed under the Act, 1881. In such cases, the proper remedy available to the complainant lies under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., wherein an appeal against an order of acquittal can only be preferred before the High Court, subject to the grant of special leave.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the learned Sessions Judge committed a grave illegality by equating a complainant in proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with a “victim” as defined under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the controversy is no longer res integra in view of authoritative pronouncements, particularly in the case of Subhash Chandra vs. State (Delhi Administration), (2013) 3 SCC 17, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that in cases arising out of a complaint, there is no right to appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C., and the only remedy available is to seek special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.

He further placed reliance on the case of The Bhajanpura Cooperative Urban Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. vs. Sushil Kumar, 2014 SCC OnLine Del

4507, in which the Delhi High Court reiterated the same principle in the context of complaints under the Act, 1881. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order dated 18.02.2016, whereby the learned Sessions Judge entertained an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. against an acquittal in a complaint case, is illegal, perverse, and liable to be quashed.

6. Per contra, the learned State Counsel submits that the appeal filed by respondent no.2 is clearly mainta