Complainant in Section 138 NI Act Proceedings is a Victim Entitled to Appeal Under Section 372 CrPC.

The appellant (original complainant) filed an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) / Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) against the judgment dated 30.12.2010 passed by the 10th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot.

The trial court had acquitted the respondents of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act).

During the pendency of the appeal, a legal question arose regarding the forum of appeal based on recent judicial precedents.

1. Whether a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act proceeding is considered a "victim" entitled to file an appeal against acquittal in the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC.

2. Whether the present appeal, originally filed in the High Court, should be transferred to the Sessions Court for adjudication.

The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. [2025 (3) GLH 747], which established that a complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act is a "victim" as defined under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC.

Consequently, such a victim has a statutory right to prefer an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC (now Section 413 of the BNSS) to the Court immediately superior in hierarchy, i.e., the Sessions Court.

The court also noted the principle from Shivsinh Ganpatsinh Solanki v. State of Gujarat regarding the procedural handling of such appeals.

The High Court observed that the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial clarified that the right of a victim to appeal is absolute and not circumscribed by the requirement of seeking "leave to appeal" under Section 378(4) of the CrPC.

Since the complainant and the victim are the same person in cheque dishonour cases, they possess a superior right to approach the Sessions Court.

Following this precedent and the domestic ruling in Thakar Hariprasad Dalsukhram v. State of Gujarat, the Court determined that the High Court was no longer the appropriate initial forum for this appeal.

The Court acknowledged that while a reference to a larger Bench is pending in the Supreme Court, the current settled law necessitates the transfer of such matters to the Sessions Court to ensure symmetry with the rights of the accused.

The Sessions Court is directed to treat the matter as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC / Section 413 of the BNSS, number it accordingly, and dispose of it expeditiously given the passage of time.

The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.