Direct Appeal Rights for Victims: A New Milestone in Cheque Dishonour Litigations

In a significant order aimed at easing the procedural path for victims of cheque dishonour, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana has clarified the appellate route for those seeking justice against acquittals. Relying on recent Supreme Court guidance, the Court has affirmed that victims are entitled to prefer appeals directly under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), rather than seeking special leave under Section 378(4).

Background of the Dispute

The matter originated from a complaint filed by M/s Dalip Singh Dhillon and Sonst Petro Point under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, concerning a dishonoured cheque worth Rs. 2,09,400. Following an acquittal granted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Bathinda on February 24, 2025, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.

The core legal question before the High Court was whether the "leave to appeal" hurdle is a mandatory requirement for a victim in a private complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, or if the broader provisions enacted for the protection of victims under Section 372 supersede this.

The Apex Court’s Guiding Principle

The High Court drew heavily upon the recent Supreme Court ruling in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. (2025). The apex court clarified that the victim of a crime, including a payee or holder of a dishonoured cheque, must have an absolute right to appeal.

The Supreme Court had reasoned that the involvement of the State in Section 138 cases is minimal, and the complainant serves as the primary victim. Imposing a condition of seeking "special leave" from the High Court would effectively curtail the rights that Parliament explicitly intended to bolster through the insertion of the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.

Key Observations

Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj echoed the sentiments of the Supreme Court, quoting the reasoning from the Celestium decision:

> "Firstly, the victim of a crime must have an absolute right to prefer an appeal which cannot be circumscribed by any condition precedent."

> "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..."

> "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."

The Road Ahead for Appellate Procedure

Invoking this precedent, Justice Bhardwaj allowed the application for condonation of delay and remanded the matter to the Sessions Judge, Bathinda. The order directs the lower court to treat the request not as a prayer for leave, but as a substantive appeal under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.

This ruling serves as a vital safeguard for claimants, removing the uncertainty of the "leave to appeal" process and ensuring that victims of financial crimes have a clear, uninterrupted trajectory to challenge acquittals deemed unjust. For legal practitioners, this confirms that for Section 138 NI Act convictions, the forum for appeal against acquittal is now undisputedly the Court of Sessions under the victim’s right created by Section 372.