Victim's appeal under section 372 governs cheque dishonour complaints, making special leave under section 378(4) unnecessary.

In a private complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court held that the complainant, as a victim, could invoke the proviso to section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure instead of seeking special leave under section 378(4). Reading the two provisions harmoniously, the Court applied the statutory definition of "victim" and the principle that appellate remedies should be construed to avoid anomaly and preserve an effective forum. The matter was therefore treated as a victim's appeal under section 372 and transferred to the competent Sessions Court for disposal, making special leave under section 378(4) unnecessary in that situation.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after the Supreme Court's ruling in Celestium Financial, a complainant in a private complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was required to seek special leave under section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the High Court, or whether the matter could be treated as a victim's appeal under section 372 of that Code.

Analysis: The governing question was resolved by reading the proviso to section 372 and section 378(4) harmoniously, in light of the statutory definition of "victim" and the parity between the victim's right of appeal and the accused's right of appeal. The decision relied on the principle that where two provisions appear to operate in the same field, the construction that best advances the legislative object and avoids anomaly, hardship, and conflicting appellate forums must prevail. Applying that approach, the victim in a cheque dishonour complaint was held entitled to pursue the appeal under section 372, and the insistence on special leave under section 378(4) was held unnecessary in such a situation.

Conclusion: The application for leave to appeal was not to proceed as a section 378(4) matter before the High Court; it was to be treated as an appeal under section 372 and transmitted to the competent Sessions Court for disposal.

Final Conclusion: The controversy on maintainability was settled in favour of the victim's statutory appellate remedy before the Sessions Court, and the pending matter was redirected to that forum.

Ratio Decidendi: In a private complaint case, the victim's right of appeal under the proviso to section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 operates independently and, where applicable, supersedes the need to seek special leave under section 378(4), requiring a harmonious construction that preserves an effective appellate remedy before the Sessions Court.

---