The High Court of Chhattisgarh confirms that pursuant to the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, a complainant in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cases qualifies as a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) CrPC, enabling direct appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC—no special leave under Section 378(4) required. This judgment upholds and applies binding Supreme Court authority, and clarifies the appellate remedy available for cheque dishonour cases.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | ACQA/178/2012 of Smt. Vandana Jigyasi Vs Manish Nigam |
| CNR | CGHC010000672012 |
| 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 |
|
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court judgment in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. (2025) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure (NI Act, CrPC) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case may avail the right of appeal as a ‘victim’ under proviso to Section 372 CrPC, and bypass seeking special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The complainant in a cheque dishonour case is also a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) CrPC. Such a complainant may file an appeal against acquittal directly under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC (as amended), and is not required to first obtain special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC. This harmonizes the position of complainants as victims with other categories of victims, providing an unconditional right to appeal against acquittal or inadequate compensation, as per the Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. (2025 INSC 804). The High Court allowed withdrawal of the present appeal with liberty to file afresh before the Sessions Judge under proviso to Section 372 CrPC. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. (2025 INSC 804) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Relied on the Supreme Court’s reasoning treating the complainant as tantamount to a victim for the purpose of Section 372 CrPC, acknowledging the expansion of appellate rights through the parliamentary amendment and statutory interpretation. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant/complainant challenged the acquittal of the accused in a Section 138 NI Act case. Application for leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC had already been granted. Relying on the Supreme Court’s recent judgment, the appellant sought liberty to withdraw this High Court appeal and avail statutory appeal before the Sessions Judge as a victim under the CrPC. The High Court permitted withdrawal with liberty accordingly. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Chhattisgarh (until otherwise set aside or modified) |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and Sessions Courts addressing similar procedural questions under Section 138 NI Act and CrPC |
| Follows | M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. (2025 INSC 804) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that post-2025 Supreme Court ruling, complainants in dishonour of cheque cases (Section 138 NI Act) are recognized as ‘victims’ for the purposes of appeal under CrPC.
- Such complainants can now file appeals against acquittal, lesser conviction, or inadequate compensation directly before the Sessions Court under proviso to Section 372 CrPC—no need to seek special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC.
- Lawyers may seek withdrawal of ongoing High Court appeals under Section 378(4) CrPC in eligible matters and refile before the Sessions Court, taking advantage of the wider appellate right.
- The Sessions Court is to entertain such appeals even if limitation might otherwise have expired, provided appeals are filed within the permitted timeframe set by the High Court.
- Ensures parity for victims in cheque dishonour cases with other categories of victims envisaged by the CrPC amendment.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court focused on the binding decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, which held that a complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act is also a ‘victim’ as defined in Section 2(wa) CrPC.
- The Supreme Court reasoned that since cheque dishonour inflicts direct economic injury, the complainant is the aggrieved victim entitled to all statutory remedies.
- The Apex Court clarified that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC grants such ‘victims’ the right to appeal against acquittal, and this right is unconditional and not fettered by the special leave requirement under Section 378(4) CrPC.
- The High Court therefore held that, following this precedent, the appellant/complainant has a direct appellate remedy to challenge acquittal before the Sessions Judge under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- Upon the appellant’s request (and consistent with the Supreme Court’s approach), the High Court allowed the pending appeal to be withdrawn with liberty to file before the Sessions Court, and specifically protected the appeal from limitation objections if filed within the newly prescribed period.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Submitted that the Supreme Court now recognizes complainants in Section 138 NI Act cases as ‘victims’ entitled to appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- Requested liberty to withdraw the current appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC and move an appeal under Section 372 CrPC before the Sessions Judge.
- Urged the court that the limitation period should not bar consideration of such future appeal.
Respondent
- None appeared.
Factual Background
The appellant, after the trial court acquitted the accused in a Section 138 NI Act cheque dishonour case, filed an acquittal appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC before the High Court. During pendency, citing the Supreme Court’s recent decision clarifying the right of a ‘victim’ complainant to directly appeal under Section 372 CrPC, appellant sought withdrawal of the High Court appeal to pursue remedy before the Sessions Court. The High Court acceded to this request, granting liberty accordingly.
Statutory Analysis
- Considered Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deems cheque dishonour a penal offence.
- Analyzed Section 2(wa) CrPC (definition of ‘victim’), the proviso to Section 372 CrPC (giving ‘victims’ the statutory right to appeal against acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or inadequate compensation), and Section 378(4) CrPC (which previously required special leave for complainant’s appeals).
- Cited Supreme Court’s statutory interpretation: the proviso to Section 372 CrPC is a special, unconditional right for victims, including Section 138 complainants, to appeal without the rigour of Section 378(4)’s special leave.
- New provision corresponding to BNSS 2023 Section 413 noted for future procedural guidance.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The High Court permitted withdrawal of a pending Section 378(4) CrPC appeal and granted express liberty to file an appeal as a ‘victim’ under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC before the Sessions Judge.
- Specific direction issued that limitation shall not obstruct such a refiled appeal if submitted within the time prescribed in this order.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court precedent strictly applied.