The Supreme Court of India has referred to a larger bench a critical legal question regarding whether a complainant in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, qualifies as a ‘victim’ entitled to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), without seeking special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed a conflict between a recent co-ordinate Bench decision and earlier judgments of the Apex Court, necessitating an authoritative pronouncement.
Brief Summary
The Supreme Court was hearing a petition challenging a final judgment and order dated April 10, 2024, passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The core issue before the Court was the procedural requirement for a complainant to file an appeal against an acquittal in a cheque bounce case—specifically, whether they can invoke the victim’s right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC or must obtain special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC. Expressing disagreement with the recent ruling in Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran, the Bench referred the matter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions to place it before a larger Bench.
Arguments Placed
During the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner, M/S Everest Automobiles, placed heavy reliance on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in “Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran” (2025 INSC 804).
The counsel submitted that in the Celestium Financial case, a co-ordinate Bench of the Supreme Court had held that a complainant in a case arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, falls within the definition of a ‘victim’. Consequently, it was held that such a complainant “would be entitled to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.”
The counsel further highlighted that the Celestium Financial judgment determined that such an appeal could be filed against an order of acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code “without seeking special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code.”
Court’s Observations and Analysis
The Bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, scrutinized the reliance placed on the Celestium Financial judgment. The Court observed that the said judgment “did not take into account the earlier decisions of this Court” in:
- Satya Pal Singh vs. State of M.P. (2015 15 SCC 613)
- Subhash Chand vs. State (Delhi Administration) ((2013) 1 SCC 802)
The Court noted that these earlier decisions “have a bearing on both the aspects that were considered in the aforestated judgment, as they held to the contrary.”
Furthermore, the Bench expressed its inability to agree with the legal interpretation provided by the co-ordinate Bench in Celestium Financial. The Court stated: “Further, we are also unable to agree with the interpretation placed by the co-ordinate Bench upon the scheme of the Code in the context of Sections 372 and 378 thereof.”
Analyzing the statutory scheme, the Court observed:
“Perusal of Section 378(1), (2) and (3) of the Code reflects that the proviso to Section 372 thereof was carved out, keeping in mind the distinction between the prosecuting agency and the victim.”
The Bench emphasized the specific provisions retained in the Code regarding complaints. The Court stated:
“We may also notice that Section 378(4) and (5) were preserved in the Code, which make it incumbent upon the complainant, who initiated the prosecution on a complaint which resulted in acquittal, to obtain leave before an appeal is filed before the High Court.”
Decision
In light of the conflicting views and the statutory interpretation involving Sections 372 and 378 of the CrPC, the Supreme Court deemed it necessary for a larger Bench to settle the issue.
The Court held:
“In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that it is desirable that a larger Bench gives an authoritative pronouncement on this issue as it has far-reaching consequences.”
Consequently, the Bench directed that the matter be placed before the Hon’ble The Chief Justice for appropriate directions regarding the constitution of a larger Bench.
Case Details:
- Case Title: M/S Everest Automobiles vs. M/S Rajit Enterprises
- Case Number: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 12350/2024
- Coram: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
