The Court, applying Supreme Court precedent, holds that a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case is a “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC, entitled to file a direct appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, without needing special leave under Section 378(4); this aligns the victim’s appellate rights with those of the convicted accused and is binding on trial courts and Sessions Courts in the state for NI Act offences.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | ACQA/184/2012 of Prakash Kumar Jigyasi Vs Manish Nigam |
| CNR | CGHC010002532012 |
| Date of Registration | 18-10-2012 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OFF |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court judgment in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. (2025 INSC 804) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure; Negotiable Instruments Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether a complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act is a victim entitled to appeal against acquittal directly under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without seeking leave under Section 378(4) CrPC. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s authoritative pronouncement, held that a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case is also a “victim” as defined under Section 2(wa) CrPC. Accordingly, such a complainant may appeal an acquittal as a matter of right under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, without being required to obtain special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC. The rationale includes parity with an accused’s right to appeal, the intent of Parliament in inserting the victim’s right in Section 372, and the unique nature of Section 138 proceedings as private complaints. The complainant’s right to appeal is now “absolute” and not subject to Section 378(4)’s procedural hurdles. The Court permitted withdrawal of the present High Court appeal (filed under Section 378(4)) with liberty to file a fresh appeal—in the Sessions Court—under the proviso to Section 372 within 60 days. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. (2025 INSC 804) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appeal was filed by the complainant under Section 378(4) CrPC against an order of acquittal in a Section 138 NI Act case. The Supreme Court recently clarified the law regarding complainants’ appellate rights, prompting the appellant to seek withdrawal of this appeal with liberty to file a fresh appeal before the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The High Court permitted this withdrawal, granting 60 days’ time for refiling. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Sessions Courts |
| Follows | M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. (2025 INSC 804) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- A complainant in a Section 138 NI Act (cheque dishonour) case is recognized as a “victim” per Section 2(wa) CrPC, with an unfettered right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- Such an appeal can be directly filed before the Sessions Judge, without seeking special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC.
- Lawyers should advise clients that the appellate remedy in such matters now lies with the Sessions Court as of right, not at the discretion of the High Court via special leave.
- The withdrawal of a pending Section 378(4) CrPC appeal to refile under Section 372 is permissible and limitation may be relaxed by court order, as in this instance.
- The decision affirms Supreme Court clarity and is now binding for cheque dishonour matters in Chhattisgarh.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court applied the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. (2025 INSC 804), which directly addressed complainants’ appellate rights in Section 138 NI Act cases.
- The Supreme Court interpreted Section 2(wa) CrPC to include a Section 138 complainant as a “victim” due to economic injury suffered by dishonour of cheque.
- Under the amended proviso to Section 372 CrPC (effective 31.12.2009), a victim now has an absolute right to appeal against acquittal, conviction for lesser offence, or inadequate compensation, without needing to fulfill preconditions in Section 378(4).
- Parliament’s intent behind the insertion of this proviso is to place the victim’s appellate right on par with the accused’s right to appeal and to provide a more accessible remedy for those affected by offences recognized by penal laws, including deemed offences like under Section 138 NI Act.
- The complainant may either file an appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC with special leave, or, as victim, directly under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC—with the latter route preferred due to its unconditional nature.
- Since the Supreme Court permitted withdrawal and fresh filing of such appeals under Section 372, this Court also allowed the complainant to withdraw the present appeal and approach the Sessions Judge within a prescribed time, with direction that limitation should not bar genuine cases subject to this order.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant/Complainant):
- Pointed out the recent Supreme Court ruling recognizing the right of a Section 138 NI Act complainant to appeal acquittal as victim under Section 372 CrPC.
- Sought withdrawal of the pending appeal (filed under Section 378(4) CrPC) with liberty to refile before the Sessions Judge under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- Submitted that limitation should not bar the proposed appeal in this unique situation.
Respondent:
None appeared.
Factual Background
The appeal arose from an acquittal in a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant initially filed an appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC before the High Court, as was the procedure at the time of acquittal. Following a Supreme Court decision clarifying the enhanced rights of complainants as “victims” for the purposes of appeal, the appellant sought to withdraw the High Court appeal and pursue a remedy under the new interpretation—direct appeal before the Sessions Court as a matter of right.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 138 NI Act: Penal provision creating offence of cheque dishonour by legal fiction.
- Section 2(wa) CrPC: Defines “victim” to include anyone who has suffered loss or injury caused by act or omission for which the accused has been charged.
- Section 372 CrPC (Proviso): Grants victims an absolute right to appeal against acquittal, conviction for lesser offence, or inadequate compensation, inserted w.e.f. 31.12.2009; no precondition for special leave.
- Section 378(4) CrPC: Previously required special leave from High Court for complainant’s appeal against acquittal; now, in cases where complainant is also “victim,” can proceed directly under Section 372 CrPC.
- The Supreme Court clarified that the complainant as victim may prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 rather than Section 378(4).
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions noted in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court permitted withdrawal of a pending Section 378(4) CrPC appeal on grounds of changed law, granting liberty to file a fresh appeal under Section 372 proviso before the Sessions Judge, with a specific directive that limitation would not be insisted upon if the new appeal is filed within 60 days from the date of order.
- Registry was directed to return records expeditiously to facilitate the new appeal.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment faithfully applies and gives full effect to the Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. (2025 INSC 804), clarifying and streamlining appellate rights of complainants in NI Act matters.