The Chhattisgarh High Court has recognized that a complainant in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, qualifies as a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) CrPC and may prefer an appeal against acquittal solely under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, without seeking special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC. This judgment follows and applies the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, thereby clarifying appellate remedies and setting a binding precedent for all courts in the jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | ACQA/12/2013 of Prakash Kumar Jigyasi Vs Manish Nigam |
| CNR | CGHC010159852013 |
| Date of Registration | 23-01-2013 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OFF |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Single Bench (Justice Radhakishan Agrawal) |
| Precedent Value | Binding precedent within jurisdiction; persuasive for other High Courts. |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms and applies Supreme Court precedent from M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804). |
| Type of Law | Criminal procedural law; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Appellate remedies. |
| Questions of Law | Whether a complainant under Section 138 NI Act is a ‘victim’ entitled to appeal against acquittal under Section 372 CrPC’s proviso without special leave. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court, relying on the recent Supreme Court judgment, held that the complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case is a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) CrPC and can file an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The complainant need not seek special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC. The proviso to Section 372, inserted in 2009, was meant to give victims an unqualified right of appeal, paralleling the right of accused to appeal convictions under Section 374 CrPC. Therefore, if the complainant chooses to appeal as a ‘victim’, the rigour of Section 378(4) does not apply, and limitation will not bar such an appeal if made within the period directed by the Court. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Supreme Court: M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Court relies on the Supreme Court’s reasoning interpreting Section 2(wa) CrPC, proviso to Section 372 CrPC, and the legislative intent behind victim rights. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appeal arose from acquittal of the accused in a Section 138 NI Act case by JMFC, Bilaspur. The complainant/appellant had been granted leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC, but in light of the new Supreme Court ruling, sought permission to withdraw the appeal and approach the Sessions Judge under Section 372 proviso CrPC. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court may find reasoning persuasive, especially given reliance on a new Supreme Court ruling. |
| Follows | Supreme Court: M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Affirms the Supreme Court’s holding that a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case is also a ‘victim’ for purposes of Section 372 CrPC.
- Complainants need not seek special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC for appealing acquittals; they can file directly as victims under Section 372 proviso.
- If an appeal is filed as per directions within the time prescribed, limitation is not a bar.
- Empowers private complainants by expanding avenues for appellate review against acquittals in cheque dishonour cases.
- Sessions Judges are now the appellate forum for such appeals under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- Lawyers should reference this for fast-tracking appeals in similar cases and for guidance on correct appellate procedure post-acquittal.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first noted that the Supreme Court, in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804), had ruled unequivocally that the complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case is a ‘victim’ as defined by Section 2(wa) CrPC.
- As a consequence, such a complainant is entitled to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, without requiring special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC.
- The Supreme Court’s reasoning was extensively quoted, emphasizing that the right of a victim to appeal an acquittal is unconditional and not subject to the procedural restrictions applicable to a complainant under Section 378(4) CrPC.
- The High Court accepted counsel’s request to allow the appeal to be withdrawn and permitted the appellant to file an appeal before the Sessions Judge within 60 days, clarifying that limitation would not prevent such an appeal from being heard on the merits.
- The rationale is grounded in both the statutory text and legislative intent to provide full victim rights post-2009 CrPC amendment.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant/Complainant)
- Established that the Supreme Court now recognizes complainants under Section 138 NI Act as ‘victims’ for appeals.
- Sought withdrawal of the current appeal, with liberty to file a new appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- Requested that limitation should not prevent the new appeal from being considered.
Respondent
No participation or arguments recorded.
Factual Background
The case concerned an appeal by the complainant against the acquittal of the accused in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (dishonour of cheque) case decided by the JMFC, Bilaspur. Leave to appeal had already been granted under Section 378(4) CrPC. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s. Celestium Financial, the appellant sought to withdraw the existing appeal and file a fresh appeal before the Sessions Judge under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 2(wa) CrPC: Defines ‘victim,’ which the Supreme Court has interpreted to include complainants in cheque dishonour cases.
- Proviso to Section 372 CrPC: Grants victims the right to appeal against acquittal, conviction for lesser offence, or inadequate compensation.
- Section 378(4) CrPC: Previously required complainant to seek special leave to appeal against acquittal, but now, for ‘victims’, this rigour is avoided if proceeding under Section 372.
- The Court adopted the Supreme Court’s reasoning that the 2009 insertion of the proviso to Section 372 was meant to give full effect to victim rights, not subject to conditions precedent.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in this single-judge decision.
Procedural Innovations
- The High Court allowed withdrawal of an existing appeal to enable the complainant to file a new appeal under correct statutory provision as a ‘victim.’
- Directed that limitation should not be a hurdle if the appeal is filed within the timeframe stipulated by the Court.
- Ordered return of certified copies and expeditious forwarding of records to the concerned trial court and Sessions Judge.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court precedent applied and followed (M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025).