The Punjab and Haryana High Court has remitted an application seeking leave to appeal against an acquittal in a cheque bounce case to the Sessions Court, ruling that the complainant has a right to file an appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Justice Manisha Batra, relying on a recent Supreme Court judgment, held that a victim in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case can prefer an appeal before the Court of Sessions without seeking special leave from the High Court under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.
Background of the Case
The case, titled Yogendra Kumar vs. Hirdesh Singh (CRM-A-3071-2019(O&M)), involved an application filed by the applicant, Yogendra Kumar, under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. The applicant sought leave to file an appeal against a judgment of acquittal dated November 1, 2019, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Faridabad. The respondent, Hirdesh Singh, had been acquitted in a criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Arguments of the Parties
During the proceedings on December 2, 2025, Mr. Avneesh Bhardwaj, counsel for the applicant, relied upon the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208. The counsel submitted that “by directing the present application 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.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Manisha Batra analyzed the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Sections 372 and 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. in the M/s. Celestium Financial case. The High Court noted that the Apex Court observed that a victim in a private complaint case has a right to file an appeal against an order of acquittal before the Court of Sessions under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.
The High Court quoted the Supreme Court’s extensive reasoning, including the following key observations:
- Absolute Right of Victim: “The victim of a crime must have an absolute right to prefer an appeal which cannot be circumscribed by any condition precedent.”
- Parity with Accused: “The right of a victim of a crime must be placed on par with the right of an accused who has suffered a conviction… Similarly, a victim of a crime, whatever be the nature of the crime, unconditionally must have a right to prefer an appeal.”
- Section 138 Complainant as Victim: “The complainant, who is the victim of a dishonour of cheque must be construed to be victim in terms of the proviso to Section 372 read with the definition of victim under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C.”
- No Special Leave Required: “If the victim of an offence, who may or may not be the complainant, proceeds under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, then in our view, such a victim need not seek special leave to appeal from the High Court.”
Justice Batra observed, “On going through the above mentioned pronouncement of the Apex Court, it is clear that an appeal against an order of acquittal in a proceeding under Section 138 of the NI Act preferred by the complainant squarely falls within the ambit of proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C.”
The Court also referenced similar observations made in previous orders by the High Court, specifically in Satish Kumar vs. Jugal Kishore, Ajmer Kundu (deceased) through LRs vs. Pardeep Sharma, and Raj Kumar vs. Rajender.
Decision
The High Court disposed of the application with the following directions:
- The appeal, along with the accompanying application, is “remitted to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad with a direction to treat the same as having been filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C.”
- The Sessions Judge may dispose of the appeal herself or assign it to another competent court.
- The Court clarified that “it is left open for the consideration of the Sessions Court concerned to delve into the merits of the appeal as this Court has not gone into the same.”
- The applicant was directed to appear before the Sessions Judge, Faridabad, on January 15, 2026.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Yogendra Kumar vs. Hirdesh Singh
- Case No: CRM-A-3071-2019(O&M)
- Coram: Justice Manisha Batra
