The Delhi High Court has held that a complainant in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) qualifies as a ‘victim’ and is entitled to file an appeal against an acquittal before the Sessions Court without seeking special leave from the High Court.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri passed the order in the case titled Smt. Geeta Kumari vs. M/s. Group of Fanbe Residency Veli Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. (CRL.L.P. 34/2023). The ruling relies on a recent Supreme Court precedent clarifying the appellate rights of complainants in cheque dishonour cases.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Smt. Geeta Kumari, had approached the High Court filing a petition under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). She sought “leave to appeal” against a judgment dated November 2, 2021, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Saket Courts, New Delhi.
By the impugned judgment, the respondent (M/s. Group of Fanbe Residency Veli Pvt. Ltd.) had been acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.
Legal Analysis and Supreme Court Precedent
During the proceedings, the Court’s attention was drawn to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran etc. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320).
Justice Ohri noted that the Supreme Court has settled the position that a complainant who suffers financial loss due to the dishonour of a cheque falls within the definition of a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. Consequently, such a complainant has the right to maintain an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. in their own right, without needing to comply with the rigours of Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. (which requires special leave to appeal).
Quoting the Supreme Court, the High Court observed:
“In the context of offences under the Act, particularly under Section 138 of the said Act, the complainant is clearly the aggrieved party who has suffered economic loss and injury due to the default in payment… In such circumstances, it would be just, reasonable and in consonance with the spirit of the CrPC to hold that the complainant under the Act also qualifies as a victim within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the CrPC.”
The Court explained that the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. provides a victim with a distinct right to appeal against an order of acquittal. Crucially, the Court clarified the forum for such appeals. Since offences under Section 138 of the NI Act are tried by a Judicial Magistrate of First Class or a Metropolitan Magistrate, an appeal against conviction—and thus an appeal by a victim—would ordinarily lie before the Sessions Court.
Justice Ohri stated:
“In light of the Supreme Court’s recent clarification of the legal position, it is now evident that the petitioner, being the complainant under Section 138 of NI Act, is also entitled to file an appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal before the Sessions Court, since he is considered to be a victim.”
The Decision
The Court observed that if it were to hear the appeal at this stage, it would deprive the parties of a forum (the Sessions Court) for further challenge.
Acknowledging similar orders passed by Co-ordinate Benches of the Delhi High Court and various other High Courts—including Bombay, Karnataka, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Gauhati, Allahabad, and Himachal Pradesh—the Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the concerned Sessions Court.
The High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn and issued the following directions:
- The accompanying appeal is to be transferred to the concerned Appellate Court of Sessions.
- The appeal shall be considered as an appeal under the proviso to Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (formerly Section 372 of Cr.P.C.).
- The Registry was directed to transfer the entire record to the Principal District & Sessions Judge.
- The matter is listed before the Principal District & Sessions Judge for directions on December 8, 2025.
The Court clarified that it had not made any observations on the merits of the case, leaving all rights and contentions open to be agitated before the concerned Court.
