LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/vijay-kumar-vs-sumit-bhardwaj-20251112/ · Printed 10 Nov 2026
Criminal

Vijay Kumar vs Sumit Bhardwaj

Court
Delhi High Court
Date
12 November 2025
Case No.
CRL.L.P. 288/2024
Result
Disposed
Bench
Manoj Kumar Ohri
Acts & Sections
CrPC §378(4) CrPC §372 CrPC §2(wa) CrPC §200 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 §138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 §143
Headnote AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved
The petitioner/complainant filed a leave petition under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. before the Delhi High Court seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Court took note of the Supreme Court's decision in Celestium Financial vs A. Gnanasekaran (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320), wherein it was held that a complainant under Section 138 NI Act qualifies as a 'victim' within the meaning of Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. and is therefore entitled to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. without being required to seek special leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.

The Court explained that the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. is a self-contained and independent provision conferring on the victim a distinct right to appeal against orders of acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or imposition of inadequate compensation, and that such appeal lies before the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction. Since offences under Section 138 NI Act are triable by a Judicial Magistrate of First Class or a Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 143 NI Act, an appeal by the victim/complainant under Section 372 would lie before the Sessions Court, not the High Court.

Following co-ordinate Bench decisions of the Delhi High Court and the Bombay High Court which had adopted the same approach in light of Celestium Financial, the Court permitted withdrawal of the leave petition with liberty to the petitioner/complainant to approach the concerned Sessions Court by preferring an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.
Catchwords: Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 · dishonour of cheque · complainant as victim · Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. · leave to appeal · Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. · proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. · right of appeal against acquittal · victim's right of appeal · Sessions Court · Celestium Financial case · NI Act offences

Headnote © LegalFirms.in. Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Copyright Act, 1957 allows a court's judgment to be reproduced unless the court has prohibited it.

Filed under

Cheque dishonour (Section 138 NI Act)

Full Judgment Text

[Cites 23, Cited by 0] Delhi High Court - Orders Vijay Kumar vs Sumit Bhardwaj on 12 November, 2025 Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri $~53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 288/2024 VIJAY KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanser Pal Singh, Advocate versus SUMIT BHARDWAJ .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI ORDER % 12.11.2025 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/complainant seeking leave to appeal against the judgement dated 13.01.2021 passed by l
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All Delhi HC judgments →
⚖ LegalFirms.in Directory
Find an advocate for this matter
Dealing with a similar case? Find an advocate who handles this kind of matter on LegalFirms.in.
Find an Advocate →