Victims Can Appeal NI Act Acquittals Under Section 372 CrPC Without Special Leave: Madhya Pradesh High Court - 2026-02-17

Bypassing the Hurdles: MP High Court Affirms Victim's Right to Appeal NI Act Acquittals

In a significant legal clarification, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur has reaffirmed that a victim in a cheque dishonor case does not need to seek special leave to appeal an acquittal. Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani, presiding over a criminal appeal, ruled that such victims can invoke the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)—now mirrored in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)—to challenge a trial court’s decision.

The Backdrop: A Procedural Conflict

The case, S K Mobile Care vs. Shankar Prasad Gupta , stemmed from an appeal against a 2023 judgment by the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Sidhi. The trial court had acquitted the respondent of charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act. When the matter reached the High Court, the central legal question was whether the appeal should proceed under Section 378(4) of the CrPC, which requires special leave for a complainant to appeal an acquittal, or if it could be filed directly under the proviso to Section 372, which grants victims a more streamlined path to justice.

Legal Reasoning & Precedents

The High Court drew heavily from the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran (2025) . In that landmark judgment, the apex court clarified that Section 138 of the NI Act acts as a "deeming fiction" where the complainant is effectively the victim of the offence.

The court underscored that the legislative intent behind the insertion of the proviso to Section 372 in 2009 was to empower victims. Justice Vani noted that because the victim is entitled to the proceeds of the dishonored cheque, they fall squarely within the definition of a "victim" who can bypass the tedious requirement of obtaining special leave to appeal from the High Court.

Key Observations

The judgment relied on several critical observations from the Celestium Financial ruling to guide its decision:

• On the nature of victim rights: "A victim of an offence could also be a complainant. In such a case, an appeal can be preferred either under the proviso to Section 372 or under Section 378 by such a victim."
• On the distinction of procedures: "Even if the victim of an offence is a complainant, he can still proceed under the proviso to Section 372 and need not advert to sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the CrPC."
• On the objective of the law: "The object and reason for such insertion [the proviso to Section 372] must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court."

The Verdict and Its Practical Impact

The High Court ultimately disposed of the appeal by granting the appellant liberty to file the case before the competent court, specifically citing the proviso to Section 413 of the BNSS (the equivalent of Section 372 CrPC).

Crucially, the Court set a four-month window for this re-filing. It also provided procedural relief for the appellant: if a delay in the original filing had already been condoned or was within the limitation period at the High Court, the respondent cannot re-litigate the question of limitation before the appellate court.

This ruling provides clear, actionable guidance for legal professionals: complainants in cheque bounce cases should take note of the simplified route now clearly recognized by the High Court, potentially saving time and resources while upholding the victim's substantive right to challenge unjust acquittals.