The High Court holds that, in light of recent Supreme Court authority, a complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act qualifies as a Victim under Section 2(wa) CrPC and may appeal acquittals as a matter of right under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, bypassing the special leave requirement of Section 378(4) CrPC; reaffirming new Supreme Court precedent and directing withdrawal of a pending appeal to permit appeal before the Sessions Judge accordingly.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | ACQA/248/2017 of Arun Kumar Damle Vs Suresh Gupta |
| CNR | CGHC010317882017 |
| Date of Registration | 26-10-2017 |
| Decision Date | 03-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OFF |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority on subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh; affirms new Supreme Court precedent |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. (2025 INSC 804) and applies it |
| Type of Law | Criminal, Criminal Procedure, Negotiable Instruments Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case may appeal an acquittal directly as a “victim” under proviso to Section 372 CrPC, dispensing with the requirement of seeking special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that the complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act is the “victim” within the meaning of Section 2(wa) CrPC. Thus, such complainant may avail the right to appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC, without seeking special leave to appeal under Section 378(4). The right to appeal as a victim is unconditional, comparable to the right of an accused to appeal a conviction. The Sessions Judge may entertain the appeal on merits even if limitation would otherwise apply, when so directed. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Supreme Court: M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. (2025 INSC 804) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Cited the definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC; extensive reliance on Supreme Court analysis of rights of a victim vs. complainant; legislative background of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC; absence of explicit limitation on a victim’s right to appeal in Section 372. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Appeal filed by complainant under Section 378(4) CrPC in a Section 138 NI Act matter after trial court’s acquittal. Leave to appeal was previously granted. Supreme Court subsequently clarified the law enabling such complainants to appeal as victims under proviso to Section 372 CrPC. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh; Sessions Judges exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 372 CrPC/proviso in NI Act cases |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and legal practitioners in similar fact situations |
| Follows | Supreme Court decision in M/s Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. (2025 INSC 804) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Complainants in Section 138 NI Act cases are now expressly recognised as “victims” under Section 2(wa) CrPC for the purposes of appeals.
- Such complainants need not seek special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC to file an appeal against acquittal; they may directly file an appeal as a right under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- Sessions Judges have the jurisdiction to hear such appeals.
- Where directed, limitation may not bar such an appeal if filed within time prescribed by the appellate order.
- Lawyers may rely on this judgment to route future acquittal appeals in Section 138 complaints through the Sessions Court under proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court based its reasoning primarily on the Supreme Court decision in M/s Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. (2025 INSC 804).
- The Supreme Court held that for offences under Section 138 NI Act, the complainant, having suffered economic loss due to dishonour of cheque, qualifies as the “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC.
- As a result, such a complainant can directly file an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, without meeting the condition of obtaining special leave required under Section 378(4) CrPC.
- The Court acknowledged Parliament’s intention to provide an unconditional right to such victims, mirroring the rights of a convicted accused to appeal.
- The High Court, following this, allowed the appellant to withdraw the present appeal under Section 378(4) and authorised re-filing before the Sessions Judge as an appeal by a victim under Section 372 CrPC’s proviso.
- Direction to the Sessions Judge: If re-filed within prescribed period, the Sessions Judge should not apply limitation and must decide on merits.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant/Complainant):
- Cited Supreme Court precedent recognising a complainant under Section 138 NI Act as a victim with a right to appeal under Section 372’s proviso.
- Sought to withdraw the current High Court appeal and be granted liberty to approach the Sessions Judge accordingly.
- Requested that limitation should not bar the new appeal if re-filed as directed.
Respondent:
- None appeared.
Factual Background
The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after dishonour of cheque. The trial court acquitted the accused. The complainant was granted leave to file an acquittal appeal in the High Court under Section 378(4) CrPC. After the Supreme Court clarified that such complainants may appeal as victims under proviso to Section 372 CrPC, the complainant sought withdrawal of the pending appeal to pursue the newly available remedy.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act: offence of dishonour of cheque.
- Section 2(wa) CrPC: definition of “victim.”
- Section 372 CrPC (proviso): gives a victim the right to appeal against acquittal, conviction for lesser offence, or inadequate compensation.
- Section 378(4) CrPC: previously required complainant in complaint cases to obtain special leave to appeal.
- Supreme Court held that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC is a special, unconditional right for victims (including Section 138 NI Act complainants) and such appeals do not require special leave.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinion recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Explicit allowance for withdrawal of appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC to permit re-filing before Sessions Judge under Section 372’s proviso, in accordance with new Supreme Court law.
- Special direction that if the appeal is filed within prescribed time, limitation will not be a bar to merits.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Applies and affirms latest Supreme Court precedent.
Citations
- Supreme Court: M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. (2025 INSC 804)