Victim In Private Complaint Case Entitled To File Appeal Against Acquittal Before Sessions Court U/S 372 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling dated July 13, 2026, held that a victim in a private complaint case has a statutory right to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal before the Court of Sessions under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC. A bench of Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal observed that this right is superior to that of a complainant and does not require the mandatory seeking of special leave from the High Court under Section 378(4) of the CrPC.

The matter arose from a private complaint titled “Ram Niwas Vs. Pala Ram and Others” involving allegations under Sections 148, 149, 323, 452, 427, and 506 of the IPC. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar, passed an order of acquittal on February 23, 2018. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the victim/complainant approached the High Court seeking leave to file an appeal under Section 378(4) of the CrPC.

The primary question before the court was whether a victim in a private complaint case must seek special leave to appeal from the High Court under Section 378(4) CrPC or if they can directly approach the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The court also examined the retrospective applicability of Supreme Court precedents interpreting these provisions.

Statutory Framework Under Section 372 CrPC And BNSS 2023

The court began by examining the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, noting its corresponding provision in Section 413 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The proviso explicitly grants the victim a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence.

The bench emphasized that such an appeal "shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court." This statutory right was introduced by Parliament to ensure victims have a direct path to challenge acquittals in the appellate forum where a conviction in the same case would have been challenged.

Victim’s Superior Right Over General Complainants - Court Highlights Distinction Between Victim And Complainant Rights

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s Celestium Financial Versus A. Gnanasekaran etc. (2025), the court noted that the insistence on seeking special leave under Section 378(4) would defeat the legislative intent behind Section 372. The apex court had concluded that the victim in a private complaint case has a right to file an appeal under Section 372 against the order of acquittal before the Court of Sessions.

The bench noted that while Section 378 governs appeals by the State or a complainant, Section 372 envisages a "superior right" for the victim. The court observed that Parliament chose not to amend Section 378 to circumscribe the victim's right, thereby preserving the distinct and broader remedy available to victims under Section 372.

“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.”

Interpretative Decisions Have Retrospective Effect

Judicial Interpretations Apply To Pending Matters From Statute's Inception

The court further addressed the timing of these legal interpretations by citing the Supreme Court in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Versus Raj Kumar Arora (2025). The apex court held that a judgment interpreting a statute declares the meaning of the law as it should have been construed from the date of its enactment.

Consequently, such decisions have retrospective effect. The High Court observed that principles enunciated by the Supreme Court regarding Section 372 are applicable to all cases regardless of their stage of pendency, as they reflect the law as it existed from the inception of the provision.

“A judgment or decision which interprets a statute or provision thereof declares the meaning of the statute as it should be construed from the date of its enactment... therefore, it has retrospective effect.”

Case Relegated To Sessions Court For Disposal On Merits

Following the precedent set by coordinate benches in Mewa Devi Versus Pala and others and Dharampal Versus State of Haryana and others, the court relegated the matter to the Court of Sessions, Hisar. The High Court directed the Sessions Judge to treat the application for leave to appeal as an appeal filed under Section 372 of the CrPC.

The court ordered the transmission of the entire paper book and record to the Sessions Court forthwith. The applicant was directed to appear before the Sessions Judge, Hisar, within one month to pursue the appeal on its merits.

The High Court disposed of the application by affirming that the victim's remedy lies before the Sessions Court under Section 372 CrPC rather than through a leave-to-appeal petition in the High Court. The ruling reinforces the procedural priority of the victim's right to appeal acquittal orders in the appropriate local appellate forum.

Date of Decision: 13 July 2026