Victim in cheque bounce case can appeal acquittal u/s 372 CrPC; pending 378(4) plea converted

HC, relying on the SC's ruling in Celestium Financial and its own coordinate Bench decision in Satish Kumar, held that a "victim" in a complaint case under the Negotiable Instruments Act has a substantive right to appeal an acquittal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court, rather than invoking Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. Noting heavy pendency of Section 378(4) matters and the need to harmonise statutory provisions in the interests of justice, HC directed the Sessions Judge to treat the pending application for leave to appeal, originally filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., as an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C., and to assign it to the appropriate court for disposal. Application disposed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether a complainant in a private complaint case, being a "victim" within the meaning of Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C., can maintain an appeal against an order of acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions, instead of invoking Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. before the High Court.

1.2 Whether, in light of the subsequent legal position declared by the Supreme Court and followed by Coordinate Benches, an application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for leave to appeal against acquittal in a complaint case should be entertained by the High Court or redirected to the Sessions Court as an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Maintainability and forum of appeal by a complainant/victim in a private complaint case against an order of acquittal

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.1 The Court referred to and relied upon the legal position elucidated by the Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, wherein provisions of Sections 2(d), 2(n), 2(wa), 24, 200, 372, 377, 378, 386 Cr.P.C. and Sections 138-139, 141-143, 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were examined, as also the earlier view in Mallikarjun Kodagali (dead) through Legal representative v. State of Karnataka.

2.2 The Court also relied on a Coordinate Bench judgment which, following Celestium Financial, interpreted Section 2(wa) and the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., and contrasted them with Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., highlighting the appellate forums, procedural requirements (including "special leave"), and practical consequences of routing the victim's appeal through the High Court versus the Sessions Court.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.3 The Court noted that the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial answered in the affirmative the question whether an appeal would be maintainable under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. against an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon a private complaint, by treating the complainant as a "victim" under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C.

2.4 The Court recorded the Supreme Court's reasoning that: (a) the right of appeal is a statutory right and, in the case of an accused against conviction, is also traceable to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution; (b) the victim's right to appeal cannot be equated with and restricted by the statutory rigours applicable to appeals by the State or complainant under Section 378 Cr.P.C.; and (c) the statutory constraints of Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. (including the requirement of special leave from the High Court) cannot be read into the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. where they do not exist.

2.5 The Court emphasized the Supreme Court's holding that a victim of an offence-who may or may not be the complainant-has an independent right to file an appeal against acquittal in terms of the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., without seeking special leave from the High Court, and that even where the victim is also the complainant, such person "can still proceed under the proviso to Section 372 and need not advert to sub-section (4) of Section 378 Cr.P.C."

2.6 The Coordinate Bench judgment, following Celestium Financial, was noted as having held that Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. makes no distinction between victims in State cases and in private complaint cases, and that, therefore, the right of appeal conferred by the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. is available to all victims alike, including in complaint cases.

2.7 The Coordinate Bench further reasoned that limiting the victim's right of appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. only to cases arising from FIRs, and compelling victims in complaint cases to approach the High Court under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., is anomalous and causes hardship and inconvenience, particularly where: (a) some accused are acquitted and others convicted in the same complaint case, leading to appeals being entertained by different forums (Sessions for conviction, High Court for acquittal); and (b) large pendency in the High Court delays such appeals.

2.8 The Court recounted that, as per the Coordinate Bench, the Supreme Court has placed the victim's right to prefer an appeal against acquittal at par with the accused's right to appeal against conviction, and construed it as a right within the ambit of Articles 14 and 21, justifying a construction that promotes expeditious and less burdensome appellate remedies before the Sessions Court.

Conclusions

2.9 The Court accepted and followed the ratio of Celestium Financial and the Coordinate Bench decisions, holding that:

(a) A complainant in a private complaint case, being a "victim" as defined in Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C., has a statutory right to prefer an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.;

(b) Such appeal lies to the Court of Sessions; and

(c) The complainant-victim, proceeding under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., is not required to invoke Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. or seek special leave from the High Court.

Issue 2: Manner of dealing with the pending application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. in light of the above legal position

Interpretation and reasoning

2.10 The Court noted that the applicant had initially filed an appeal against acquittal before the Sessions Judge, which was withdrawn with liberty to approach the High Court under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., pursuant to earlier Supreme Court precedent then understood to govern such appeals.

2.11 In light of the subsequent authoritative pronouncement in Celestium Financial, and the interpretation adopted by the Coordinate Bench (including directions in similar matters to treat existing proceedings as appeals under Section 372 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court), the Court found no ground to take a different view.

2.12 Considering that the present matter was pending before the High Court as an application for leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., and that the appropriate forum under the now-settled law is the Court of Sessions, the Court deemed it appropriate to channel the remedy through the Sessions Court, rather than adjudicate the application for leave on merits.

Conclusions

2.13 The application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. was disposed of with the following directions:

(a) The Sessions Judge, Faridabad, is directed to restore the earlier Criminal Appeal, which had been dismissed as withdrawn, and to entrust it to the successor Court or any other competent Court having jurisdiction;

(b) The concerned Court shall decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible;

(c) The Registry of the High Court shall transmit a copy of this order along with the complete paperbook and record of the case to the Sessions Judge, Faridabad; and

(d) All pending miscellaneous applications stand disposed of as a consequence of this order.

---