Complainant in Cheque Bounce Case Is a ‘Victim’, Can Appeal Against Acquittal Without Special Leave To Session Court : P&H High Court

“Dismissal on Procedural Technicality Would Obstruct the Chariot of Justice; Substantive Right to Appeal Must Prevail” – In a significant clarification on the right to appeal in cheque dishonour cases, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case qualifies as a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, and hence, can directly file an appeal into session court under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without needing special leave under Section 378(4).

Justice Sumeet Goel, relying on the recent Supreme Court judgment in M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, rejected the maintainability of an appeal filed under Section 378(4) CrPC but protected the complainant’s right to appeal by remitting the matter to the Sessions Court to be treated as a valid appeal under the correct provision.

“A Complainant Under Section 138 NI Act Is the Aggrieved Victim — Not Just an Informant”

The appellant, Raj Kumar, had filed a criminal appeal under Section 378(4) of the CrPC, seeking leave to challenge the acquittal of the respondent in a cheque bounce case. The complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had been dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, Mohindergarh on 5 March 2025, resulting in the respondent’s acquittal.

Along with the appeal, the appellant filed an application seeking special leave to appeal — a requirement traditionally understood to be mandatory in complaint cases. However, during arguments, attention was drawn to the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 INSC 804, which decisively changed the landscape.

The High Court, quoting extensively from the Supreme Court ruling, held that: “In the context of offences under the Act… the complainant is clearly the aggrieved party who has suffered economic loss and injury… In such circumstances, it would be just, reasonable and in consonance with the spirit of the CrPC to hold that the complainant… qualifies as a victim within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the CrPC.”

Justice Goel highlighted that this classification fundamentally alters the procedural route. Once a complainant is seen as a ‘victim’, they need not seek special leave under Section 378(4) to file an appeal against acquittal. Instead, they may directly invoke the proviso to Section 372 CrPC (or Section 413 of BNSS, 2023) — a right granted unconditionally to victims.

“The Law Declared by Supreme Court Operates Retrospectively Unless Stated Otherwise” – No Bar to Applying Celestium Financial in Pending Matters

The respondent argued that the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Celestium Financial should apply only prospectively and not to cases already filed under Section 378(4). The Court, however, decisively rejected this plea, holding that:

“A definitive pronouncement emanating from the Apex Court… operates retrospectively, unless specifically directed otherwise.”

Justice Goel elaborated on the Blackstonian theory, explaining that: “Judges do not make law; they merely declare it. The correct principle of law is just discovered and applied retrospectively. It only discovers the correct principle of law which has to be applied retrospectively.”

This reasoning was fortified by the Supreme Court’s own words in DRI v. Raj Kumar Arora and ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., which state that a judicial decision “declares what the law always was.”

Appeal Saved by Doctrine of Substantive Justice:

While acknowledging that the current appeal had been wrongly filed under Section 378(4), the Court refused to dismiss it merely on procedural grounds. Justice Goel emphasized:

“A summary dismissal solely on a procedural technicality would constitute an unwarranted wastage of precious judicial time and resources… The cause of substantive justice must unequivocally prevail over procedural technicalities.”

He further held:

“This Court deems it appropriate to relegate the matter to the concerned Sessions Court, with a clear direction that the present filing… be treated and adjudicated as an appeal validly preferred under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.”

The Court, by interpreting Celestium Financial as binding law with retrospective effect, has brought uniformity to a previously uncertain procedural area in cheque bounce litigation. It has reaffirmed the statutory right of victims to appeal acquittals without procedural hurdles, and more importantly, demonstrated a judicial commitment to substantive fairness over technical rigidity.

The appeal and all applications were disposed of with a direction to the Sessions Court, Mahindergarh, to treat the matter as an appeal under Section 372 CrPC/Section 413 BNSS and proceed in accordance with law.

Date of Decision: 07 July 2025