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

The appellant (original complainant) filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, regarding a dishonoured cheque.

By a judgment dated 21.01.2014, the 10th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar, acquitted the respondent-accused.

The appellant initially preferred this appeal against acquittal before the High Court under Section 378 of the CrPC.

However, during the pendency of the appeal, a shift in legal precedent regarding the forum for such appeals occurred.

1. Whether a complainant in a case under Section 138 of the NI Act is considered a "victim" entitled to file an appeal against acquittal before the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC/Section 413 of the BNSS.

2. Whether the present appeal pending before the High Court should be transferred to the concerned Sessions Court in light of recent judicial pronouncements.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 (3) GLH 747) and the Gujarat High Court decision in Shivsinh Ganpatsinh Solanki v. State of Gujarat.

These precedents establish 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 under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC (now Section 413 of the BNSS) to appeal an acquittal to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies (the Sessions Court), rather than seeking special leave to appeal to the High Court under Section 378(4).

The Court examined the nature of Section 138 proceedings and concluded that because the payee/holder of a cheque suffers a direct impact from the dishonour, they satisfy the criteria of a "victim".

The Court reasoned that the right of a victim to appeal is absolute and should not be more encumbered than the rights of an accused; therefore, the victim need not fulfill the condition of seeking "leave to appeal" required under Section 378(4).

While noting that the issue has been referred to a larger bench by the Supreme Court in an SLP, the Court maintained that the current authoritative stance requires such appeals to be heard by the immediate superior hierarchy, i.e., the Sessions Court.

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), issue fresh notices to the parties, and endeavor to dispose of the matter expeditiously.

The Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the acquittal.