Complainant in Cheque Bounce Case is a ‘Victim’ and Can Appeal Acquittal Without Leave: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Victim under Section 138 N.I. Act is Entitled to Appeal Without Seeking Special Leave: Punjab and Haryana High Court reclassifying an application under Section 378(4) CrPC as a statutory appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, in line with the Supreme Court's authoritative ruling in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran. This development has reaffirmed the right of a complainant in a cheque dishonour case to appeal an acquittal as a "victim", without seeking leave of the High Court.

The High Court's ruling underscores the shift in judicial interpretation regarding the procedural rights of complainants under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, especially in cheque bounce cases under Section 138.

Acquittal in Cheque Bounce Case Prompted Appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC

The applicant, Shefali Goel, had initially filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, read with Section 420 IPC, alleging dishonour of a cheque issued by the respondent, Sourabh Goel. However, by judgment dated 10.05.2022, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambala acquitted the accused, leading the complainant to file an application under Section 378(4) CrPC seeking leave to appeal the acquittal.

Rather than treating the matter as a traditional leave to appeal, the applicant's counsel invoked the Supreme Court's 2025 decision in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, urging that she be recognised as a "victim" under Section 2(wa) CrPC, and allowed to directly file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, which permits victims to appeal acquittals without prior leave.

Whether Leave to Appeal Required for Complainant in Cheque Dishonour Case

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case is required to seek special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC, or can directly invoke the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, as a "victim" under Section 2(wa) CrPC.

This question had been recently answered by the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial, where the Apex Court distinguished between appeals by the State and those filed by individual victims, particularly in private complaints like those under Section 138.

 “Victim Must Have Absolute Right to Appeal”

Referring extensively to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Celestium Financial, Justice Manisha Batra reiterated key principles that now govern appeals against acquittals in NI Act cases. The judgment cited the Supreme Court’s observation:

“The victim of a crime must have an absolute right to prefer an appeal which cannot be circumscribed by any condition precedent.”

The High Court stressed that, under the revised framework, the complainant, being the person aggrieved by the dishonour of a cheque, squarely falls within the definition of "victim" under Section 2(wa) CrPC. Hence, the insistence on seeking special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC is no longer tenable when the appeal is preferred under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.

Quoting the Supreme Court, the judgment further observed:

“A person who is a complainant under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. who complains about the offence committed by a person who is charged as an accused under Section 138 of the Act, thus has the right to prefer an appeal as a victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.”

This interpretation, the Court held, is consistent with the legislative intent behind the 2009 amendment introducing the proviso to Section 372, which grants victims a substantive right to appeal acquittals, convictions for lesser offences, or inadequate compensation.

Supreme Court’s Celestium Ruling Applied in Totality

Justice Batra concluded that the applicant was indeed entitled to maintain the appeal without seeking special leave, and directed the matter to be transferred to the Sessions Court, Ambala for adjudication on merits under Section 372 CrPC. The Registry was instructed to send the entire case record and paper-book to the Sessions Court, and the applicant was ordered to appear before that court on November 14, 2025.

Appeal to Be Heard on Merits by Sessions Court

While disposing of the matter, Justice Manisha Batra clarified that no opinion was being expressed on the merits of the case and that the Sessions Court would independently assess the evidence and arguments. The direction read:

“It is left open for the consideration of the Sessions Court concerned to delve into the merits of the appeal as this Court has not gone into the same.”

Accordingly, the matter was ordered to be registered and treated as a statutory appeal under Section 372 CrPC, bypassing the need for leave under Section 378(4).

Complainant’s Procedural Rights Strengthened

This judgment from the Punjab and Haryana High Court marks a crucial affirmation of victims’ rights in criminal jurisprudence, particularly in private complaint proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act. By aligning with the Supreme Court's interpretation in Celestium Financial, the High Court has eliminated procedural hurdles that often frustrated genuine appeals in cheque dishonour cases.

As courts continue to interpret the proviso to Section 372 CrPC liberally and purposively, complainants now have a clear and unconditional route to seek justice against acquittals in cheque bounce matters—without the gatekeeping mechanism of seeking leave under Section 378(4).

Date of Decision: 14.10.2025