The High Court affirms the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case qualifies as a “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC, thus enabling such complainants to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. This judgment upholds Supreme Court precedent in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran and clarifies the procedural rights of complainants in cheque dishonour matters. It is binding for subordinate courts and holds persuasive value for other High Courts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | ACQA/687/2024 of CHANDRABHAN PANDEY Vs CHANDRA PRAKASH RAJWADE |
| CNR | CGHC010260972024 |
| Date of Registration | 31-07-2024 |
| Decision Date | 03-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | WITHDRAWN |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR JAISWAL |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Precedent Value | Binding on courts subordinate to Chhattisgarh High Court; persuasive for other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedent in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure; Negotiable Instruments Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case, whose complaint has been dismissed for non-prosecution, can file an appeal as a “victim” under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The judgment holds that, following the Supreme Court ruling in M/s. Celestium Financial, a complainant in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the NI Act is also considered a “victim” as per Section 2(wa) CrPC. Consequently, such a complainant is entitled to avail the remedy of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The appellant was granted liberty to file such an appeal within 60 days, and the subordinate court was directed to entertain the appeal on merits without insisting on the limitation period if filed within that time. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The logic followed is direct application of the Supreme Court decision clarifying the status of complainants as “victims” in NI Act cases, thereby modifying the usual limitation and remedy approach. |
| Citations | 2025 INSC 804 (Supreme Court), ACQA No. 687/2024 (Chhattisgarh High Court) |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Chhattisgarh High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; Supreme Court |
| Follows | M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court directly applies the Supreme Court’s clarification that a complainant under Section 138 NI Act is a “victim” for appeal purposes under Section 372 CrPC.
- Complainants can file appeals as “victims” even after dismissal for non-prosecution.
- Appeals filed within 60 days (from this order) must be entertained without limitation objections.
- Lawyers representing cheque dishonour complainants should now advise on this additional appellate route.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court refers to and follows the Supreme Court’s reasoning in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, which interprets “victim” as defined under Section 2(wa) CrPC to include a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case.
- The order emphasises that the Supreme Court’s decision entitles the complainant to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
- The High Court accordingly disposes of the pending appeal, giving liberty to the complainant to avail the new appellate remedy and directs subordinate courts not to raise limitation objections if the appeal is filed within 60 days.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Submitted that, in view of the recent Supreme Court judgment, the complainant is a “victim” as per Section 2(wa) CrPC.
- Urged the court to dispose of the present appeal with liberty to avail the remedy prescribed by Supreme Court, i.e., appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
Respondent:
- No specific arguments recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
This was an acquittal appeal under Section 378(4) of the CrPC, challenging an order dated 26.02.2020 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baikunthpur. In the underlying criminal complaint (No. 72/2019) under Section 138 of the NI Act, the complaint was dismissed due to non-prosecution, resulting in acquittal of the accused. The appellate proceedings were re-oriented upon the Supreme Court’s recent clarification about the remedy available to the complainant as a “victim”.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Offence regarding dishonour of cheque.
- Section 2(wa) CrPC: Definition of “victim”.
- Proviso to Section 372 CrPC: Right of “victim” to appeal against order of acquittal.
- Section 413 of the BNSS: Corresponding provision in new code.
- The Supreme Court judgment clarified that the complainant under Section 138 qualifies as a victim for purposes of appeal.
Procedural Innovations
- The High Court directed that, for appeals filed within 60 days as per this order, limitation will not be insisted upon by subordinate courts.
- Liberty was formally reserved for the appellant to avail the new route under the amended interpretation of the law.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The High Court follows and applies a recent Supreme Court precedent (M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804).
Citations
- M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804 (Supreme Court)
- ACQA No. 687/2024, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur