The judgment affirms that a complainant in a cheque dishonour (Section 138 NI Act) case qualifies as a “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC and may appeal an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without seeking special leave under Section 378(4). This reflects a binding clarification of appellate rights, consolidating Supreme Court precedent for financial/commercial offences, now authoritative for lower courts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | ACQA/218/2012 of Prakash Kumar Jigyasi Vs Manish Nigam |
| CNR | CGHC010012252012 |
| Date of Registration | 14-12-2012 |
| 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 within Chhattisgarh; applies Supreme Court ruling as binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court formulation in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedural Law; Negotiable Instruments Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case can appeal an acquittal as a “victim” under proviso to Section 372 CrPC without seeking special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Supreme Court judgment in M/s. Celestium Financial unequivocally holds that a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case is a “victim” as defined in Section 2(wa) CrPC. Such a complainant can appeal an acquittal directly under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, bypassing the need to seek special leave under Section 378(4). The High Court followed this binding precedent, permitting withdrawal of the leave appeal and directing that the appeal may be filed before the Sessions Judge without limitation concerns, provided it is filed within the prescribed period. The case harmonizes the rights of victims in cheque dishonour cases with those in other penal offences, as per the Supreme Court’s reasoning. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. (2025 INSC 804) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court’s detailed analysis interpreting Section 2(wa) and proviso to Section 372 CrPC; Parliamentary intention as stated in legislative history; comparative rights of complainant and State in criminal appeals; statutory construction of “victim” and effect of parallel procedures under Section 138 NI Act. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appeal arose out of an acquittal in a complaint under Section 138 NI Act. The appellant had initially sought leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC, which was granted, but in light of the recent Supreme Court decision, sought to withdraw and pursue an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC as a “victim”. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh; aligns with Supreme Court precedent nationwide |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and appellate bodies outside Chhattisgarh until directly ruled otherwise |
| Follows | M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. (2025 INSC 804) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- A complainant in a cheque dishonour case (Section 138 NI Act) is judicially recognized as a “victim” under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC.
- Such a complainant may file an appeal against acquittal directly under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, without the need for special leave under Section 378(4).
- Lawyers should prefer appeals under Section 372 proviso before the Sessions Court, rather than seeking special leave appeals in the High Court under Section 378(4), for quicker remedy.
- The Sessions Judge cannot reject such an appeal on limitation grounds if it is filed within the timeframe prescribed by the High Court in this order.
- Legal practitioners must note that this route harmonizes appellate procedure for victims in cases under the NI Act and other penal laws.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court relied entirely on the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. (2025 INSC 804).
- The Supreme Court reasoned that, for Section 138 NI Act offences, the complainant suffers direct economic loss and thus meets the statutory definition of “victim” in Section 2(wa) CrPC.
- As per the Supreme Court, the statutory insertion of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC conferred a superior, unconditional right of appeal to victims, including complainants, without the special leave requirement of Section 378(4).
- The Court distinguished between the appeal rights of informants and victims and explained the Parliamentary intent in providing a streamlined right for victims, applicable also to “deemed offences” like cheque dishonour.
- Applying this, the High Court permitted withdrawal of the pending appeal (which had already obtained leave under Section 378(4)), with liberty to file before the Sessions Judge under the proviso to Section 372, and explicitly directed that limitation would not bar such an appeal if filed within 60 days.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant/Complainant):
- Submitted that following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Celestium Financial, he is entitled to appeal as a “victim” under Section 372 proviso, obviating the need for special leave under Section 378(4).
- Requested the Court to allow withdrawal of this appeal with liberty to prefer a fresh appeal before the Sessions Judge under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- Requested that limitation should not operate against the appeal if filed as permitted by the Court.
Respondent:
None appeared.
Factual Background
The dispute arose from an order of acquittal by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant had initially filed a leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent clarification recognizing the right of a Section 138 complainant to appeal as a “victim” under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, the appellant sought to withdraw the present appeal and pursue the remedy under the clarified legal position.
Statutory Analysis
The High Court examined Section 2(wa) (“victim”) and the proviso to Section 372 CrPC in light of the Supreme Court judgment. The analysis highlighted that the definition of “victim” includes a complainant under Section 138 NI Act, thus enabling such a person to file an appeal against acquittal without special leave under Section 378(4). The Court further referenced the legislative intent behind the 2009 insertion of the provision, noting its effect was to broaden victims’ appellate rights.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The High Court expressly permitted withdrawal of the leave to appeal, granting liberty to approach the Sessions Court with an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- The Court directed that limitation would not prevent consideration of the appeal if filed within 60 days from receipt of the order, thereby protecting appellant’s substantive right.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Binding Supreme Court precedent applied and followed.