Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the complainant, being also the victim, was required to exhaust the statutory appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before seeking special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Analysis: The application arose from dismissal of a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court noted that the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers a statutory right of appeal on the victim against an acquittal, and that this remedy was available to the petitioners because they were both complainants and victims. Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which enables a complainant in a complaint case to seek special leave to appeal, was held not to be the appropriate route where the statutory appeal under Section 372 was already available. The Court further observed that where the complainant and the victim are different persons, recourse to Section 378(4) may be maintainable, but not where the same person occupies both roles.
Conclusion: The petitioners were required to pursue the statutory appeal under Section 372 first, and special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) was not granted.
Ratio Decidendi: When the complainant is also the victim and a statutory appeal is available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) cannot be entertained without first exhausting that statutory appellate remedy.