Vijay Kumar vs Sumit Bhardwaj

Headnote AI-drafted · Editorially reviewed

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