Victim Has Absolute Right To Appeal Against Acquittal Under Section 372 CrPC, Need Not Seek Special Leave Under Section 378(4): Punjab & Haryana High Court

"The victim of a crime must have an absolute right to prefer an appeal which cannot be circumscribed by any condition precedent." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a victim has an absolute and unconditional right to file an appeal against an order of acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), without needing to seek special leave under Section 378(4).

A bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj and Justice Amarjot Bhatti observed that insisting on special leave from the High Court would defeat the Parliament's intent behind enacting the proviso to Section 372, which grants a superior right of appeal to the victim compared to a general complainant.

The applicant originally filed an application before the High Court under Section 378(4) of the CrPC, seeking special leave to appeal against a trial court's order dated April 6, 2023. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Talwandi Sabo, had acquitted the respondent-accused in a private complaint involving offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 165, 166, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The central contention was the proper forum and statutory provision under which the victim could challenge this acquittal.

The primary question before the court was whether a victim is required to seek special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the CrPC before the High Court to challenge an acquittal in a complaint case. The court was also called upon to determine whether the appeal should instead be filed directly before the Sessions Court as a matter of right under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC.

Victim's Right To Appeal Is Absolute

Relying on the Supreme Court's pronouncement in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., the High Court emphasized the comparative interpretation of Sections 372 and 378(4) of the CrPC. The bench observed that the Parliament deliberately inserted the proviso to Section 372 to give victims an untrammelled right to challenge acquittals. The court noted that this right must be placed on par with an accused person's right to appeal a conviction under Section 374, which is not subjected to any preliminary conditions.

"Similarly, a victim of a crime, whatever be the nature of the crime, unconditionally must have a right to prefer an appeal."

Special Leave Requirement Contrary To Legislative Intent

The court elucidated that forcing a victim to seek special leave to appeal from the High Court under Section 378(4) would directly contradict the legislative intent behind the Section 372 proviso. It was observed that while the State or a standard complainant requires the court's leave to appeal against an acquittal, the Parliament consciously chose not to amend Section 378 to circumscribe the victim's rights in the same manner. The proviso was specifically designed to ensure the victim's recourse is not hindered by procedural bottlenecks.

"On the other hand, the Parliament has inserted the proviso to Section 372 so as to envisage a superior right for the victim of an offence to prefer an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein as compared to a complainant."

Complainant In Private Case Is A Victim Under CrPC

Drawing from the apex court's ruling, the bench noted that proceedings such as those under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are in the nature of private complaints under Section 200 of the CrPC. The court emphasized that the complainant who suffers the impact of an offence must invariably be construed as a "victim" in terms of Section 2(wa) of the CrPC. Consequently, this classification entitles them to directly invoke the protective umbrella of the proviso to Section 372.

Application Of Precedents Retrospectively

Delving into the applicability of the Supreme Court's interpretation, the High Court invoked the doctrine of prospective overruling as clarified in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs. Raj Kumar Arora. The bench highlighted that when a court interprets a statutory provision, it declares the meaning of the statute as it should have been construed from the very date of its enactment. Therefore, such judicial interpretations inherently carry retrospective effect and apply to all pending cases irrespective of the stage of litigation before different forums.

"What has been declared to be the law of the land must be held to have always been the law of the land. This conclusion also stems from the rationale that the duty of the court is not to pronounce a new law but to maintain and expound the old one."

Applying these authoritative pronouncements, the High Court declined to entertain the matter as a leave petition under Section 378(4). Instead, the bench directed the concerned Sessions Judge to treat the present application as a regular appeal filed under Section 372 of the CrPC. The court ordered the registry to immediately transmit the complete paperbook and case records to the Sessions Court for disposal on merits.

Date of Decision: 22 July 2026