The High Court reaffirms that complainants under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are “victims” as per Section 2(wa) CrPC and can appeal an acquittal directly under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without seeking special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran. This clarification changes established appellate practice for cheque dishonour cases and is binding on subordinate courts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | ACQA/469/2018 of SANTOSH RATHORE Vs YOGESHWAR KUMAR CNR CGHC010391592018 |
| Date of Registration | 04-12-2018 |
| Decision Date | 11-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OFF |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Precedent Value |
|
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms and applies Supreme Court ruling in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804). |
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Whether a complainant under Section 138 NI Act is a “victim” entitled to appeal an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without special leave under Section 378(4)? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The judgment, relying on the Supreme Court precedent, holds that a complainant in a cheque dishonor case under Section 138 NI Act qualifies as a “victim” within Section 2(wa) CrPC. Therefore, the complainant may appeal an acquittal order directly before the Sessions Judge under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without seeking special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC. As such, the appellate forum for such cases shifts from the High Court to the Sessions Court, enhancing access to remedies for complainants. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Detailed excerpts and reasoning from the Supreme Court decision in Celestium Financial, including its interpretation of victim rights, statutory construction of Section 372 proviso, and the legislative intent behind the insertion of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The complainant had filed an acquittal appeal in the High Court under Section 378(4) CrPC against an order of acquittal for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act. During appeal, the Supreme Court judgment in Celestium Financial was brought to the Court’s notice, and the appellant sought permission to withdraw the High Court appeal and instead pursue the remedy under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC before the Sessions Judge. The respondent did not oppose. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh. |
| Persuasive For | Sessions Courts handling NI Act appeals, other High Courts examining procedural rights for cheque dishonour cases. |
| Follows | Supreme Court: M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804). |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Explicit recognition that complainants in Section 138 NI Act cases are “victims” under Section 2(wa) CrPC.
- Such complainants can now appeal acquittal orders by directly invoking the proviso to Section 372 CrPC before the Sessions Judge, bypassing the requirement of seeking special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC from the High Court.
- Remedy for appeal is before the Sessions Judge, not the High Court in such cases.
- The period of limitation is relaxed for such transferred appeals as per the Court’s direction: if the appeal is filed within 60 days of the order, Sessions Courts should not dismiss it on limitation grounds.
- Lawyers should now advise clients in cheque dishonour matters that an acquittal appeal must go to the Sessions Court, not High Court, invoking Section 372 CrPC.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court considered the Supreme Court judgment in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804).
- The Supreme Court clarified that, for offences under Section 138 of the NI Act, the complainant qualifies as a “victim” as defined under Section 2(wa) CrPC.
- As a victim, the complainant can maintain an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC before the Sessions Judge, with no requirement of seeking special leave as under Section 378(4) CrPC.
- The Court explained that the right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC is unconditional and absolute for victims, including complainants in Section 138 NI Act matters, unlike the conditional right for complainants under Section 378(4).
- Applying this precedent, the Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the pending appeal in the High Court and pursue an appeal before the Sessions Judge under Section 372 CrPC, with the added direction regarding limitation.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Invoked the Supreme Court’s recent decision in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran.
- Submitted that the complainant is entitled to be treated as a “victim” and can file an appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- Sought withdrawal of the present High Court appeal with liberty to file an appeal before the Sessions Judge, and requested that delay should not be a bar to such an appeal.
Respondent:
- Did not oppose the submissions or the prayer for withdrawal and liberty.
Factual Background
The matter originated from a cheque dishonour complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janjgir, acquitted the accused giving benefit of doubt. The complainant filed an acquittal appeal in the High Court under Section 378(4) CrPC. During pendency, the Supreme Court’s judgment in M/s. Celestium Financial was delivered, clarifying the appropriate appellate procedure, prompting the appellant to seek withdrawal of the High Court appeal and permission to file before Sessions Court.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Penal provision for dishonour of cheque.
- Section 2(wa) CrPC: Definition of “victim”.
- Proviso to Section 372 CrPC: Grants victim the right to appeal adversely affected orders without conditions.
- Section 378(4) CrPC: Requires complainant to seek special leave to appeal in complaint cases.
- The Supreme Court interpretation, as cited by the Court, held that for cases under Section 138 NI Act, the complainant is the “victim,” thus eligible to appeal directly under Section 372’s proviso, bypassing Section 378(4)’s requirement of special leave.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court specifically directed that if the appeal before the Sessions Judge is filed within 60 days of receipt of the order, the Sessions Court should not insist upon the limitation in deciding the appeal.
- The Registry was directed to return the certified copy of the impugned judgment for filing before the Sessions Judge after keeping an attested photocopy.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Supreme Court’s new precedent is followed and applied.
- 📅 Time-Sensitive – Limitation period relaxed for the transfer of appeal from High Court to Sessions Court if filed within stipulated time.