Complainant in Section 138 NI Act proceedings is a 'victim' entitled to appeal under Section 372 CrPC.

In brief

The question

1. Whether a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case qualifies as a "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, thereby entitling them to file an appeal against acquittal in the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372

The court held

The High Court disposed of the appeal by directing the Registry to transfer the entire case record to the concerned Sessions Court

It also directed

The Sessions Court was ordered to treat the case as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC / Section 413 of the BNSS, issue fresh notices to the parties, and make an endeavor to dispose of the matter expeditiously

The Court clarified it did not enter into the merits of the acquittal

01Facts

The appellant, the original complainant, filed an appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) / Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) challenging the judgment dated 26.11.2018

p. 1

The Trial Court (Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mansa) had acquitted the respondent-accused of charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881

pp. 1-2

During the pendency of the appeal, a legal question arose regarding the correct forum for filing such an appeal in light of recent judicial precedents

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case qualifies as a "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, thereby entitling them to file an appeal against acquittal in the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372

¶ 3, 4

ii.2. Whether the High Court should transfer the pending appeal to the Sessions Court based on the precedent set in Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran

¶ 8

03Law Applied

The court primarily relied on the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC (and corresponding Section 413 of the BNSS), which grants a "victim" the right to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the sentence

¶ 3, 8

It applied the principle established in Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran [2025 (3) GLH 747], which determined that a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act proceeding is a "victim" as they have suffered the impact of the dishonored cheque

¶ 7.12

The court also noted that while the issue is referenced to a larger bench in the Supreme Court (SLP (Crl.) No. 12350/2024), current precedent favors the victim's right to appeal before a Sessions Court

¶ 6, 7.8

Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 2 Section 200 Section 372 Section 374 Section 378

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 413 Section 419

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138 Section 143

04Reasoning

The Court observed that under Section 138 of the NI Act, the complainant and the victim are effectively the same person because only the payee or holder of the cheque who suffers the loss can file the complaint

¶ 7.9

Consequently, the victim's right to appeal under Section 372 (proviso) is absolute and not subject to the "leave to appeal" requirements found in Section 378(4) of the CrPC

¶ 7.12

Following the mandatory directions in Celestium Financial and the High Court’s own decision in Thakar Hariprasad Dalsukhram Vs. State of Gujarat [2026 SCC OnLine Guj 569], the Court reasoned that the immediate superior court—the Sessions Court—is the appropriate forum for this appeal rather than the High Court

¶ 4, 8