Cheque dishonour as injury to property interest: holder treated as victim and appeal maintainable without leave.

A dishonoured cheque holder was treated as a victim for purposes of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC because cheque dishonour causes injury to the holder's property interest. Reading the victim definition in Section 2(wa) with the Code and the IPC definitions of injury and movable property, the Court held that the complainant could invoke the victim's right of appeal. It further held that Section 378(4) did not govern such an appeal in this setting, so leave to appeal was unnecessary. The result was that the challenge to the appellate order failed and the appeal by the cheque holder was maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the holder of a dishonoured cheque is a "victim" entitled to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether such appeal is maintainable without seeking leave under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 372 confers a right of appeal on the victim, and Section 2(wa) defines victim as a person who has suffered loss or injury by reason of the act or omission for which the accused was charged. Reading Section 2(wa) with Section 2(y) of the Code and the definitions of "injury" in Section 44 and "movable property" in Section 22 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Court held that dishonour of a cheque causes injury to the cheque holder's property interest. On that basis, the cheque holder is both complainant and victim. The Court further held that Section 378(4), which deals with leave to appeal by complainants in specified classes of cases, did not control the appeal in the present situation.

Conclusion: The cheque holder was a victim entitled to file the appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the appeal was maintainable without leave under Section 378(4); the challenge to the appellate order failed.

---