TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 171
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case of Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320, which was decided on 08.04.2025. 3. The Hon'ble Apex in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (supra), opined that a complainant who prefers a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act is an aggrieved party who suffers economic loss due to the dishonour of cheque, and such a complainant qualifies as a victim within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the CrPC. Consequently, it was held that such a complainant is entitled to the benefit of the proviso of Section 372 of the CrPC, enabling them to maintain an appeal against an order of acquittal without seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the CrPC. 4. As the petitioners were the complainant in the respective complaints in the respective petitions preferred under Section 138 of the NI Act, the petitioner in the respective petitions are thus entitled to maintain an appeal under Section 372 of the CrPC. 5. However, when the matter was listed for clarifications, the learned counsel for the petitioners asserted that the petitioners wish to press the appeals before this Court rather than pursuing their remedy of preferring an appeal before the learned Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he CrPC who complains about the offence committed by a person who is charged as an accused under Section 138 of the Act, thus has the right to prefer an appeal as a victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC. 10. As already noted, the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC was inserted in the statute book only with effect from 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such insertion must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the victim of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the victim of an offence is a complainant, he can still proceed under the proviso to Section 372 and need not advert to sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the CrPC." (emphasis supplied) 8. At this juncture, the short question before this Court is whether the complainant has the option of pursuing the remedy under Section 378 of the CrPC by approaching the High Court directly instead of availing the remedy under Section 372 of the CrPC when the order of acquittal which is sought to be challenged has been passed by the learn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trate in a case instituted upon a complaint, and they were constrained to the remedy provided under Section 378 of the CrPC. Thus, to plug this gap, the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC was added by way of an amendment in the year 2009. 12. However, no amendment was made in Section 378 of the CrPC to limit the remedy of a complainant, who being a victim, had now been enabled to directly approach the Court of Sessions in appeal under Section 372 of the CrPC. 13. In the case of Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has recognized a complainant in an NI Act case as a victim and observed that such complainants are entitled to prefer an appeal under Section 372 of the CrPC against order of acquittal. It is pertinent to note that although the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the complainant has the option of choosing between the remedies, however, no specific consideration is rendered on the fact as to whether the victim is required to first exhaust his remedy under Section 372 of the CrPC. In the said case, pursuant to acquittal of the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act by a Magistrate, the complainant had approached the High....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the victim has the choice of forum and that the High Court has concurrent jurisdiction to entertain an appeal under Section 378 of the CrPC, as a rule of prudence and judicial propriety, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to entertain the present petition before the Court of Sessions has appraised the matter on merits and the same is also an alternate efficacious remedy, unless there are compelling and substantial reasons rather than any perceived advantage that the victim hopes to secure. 20. In the present case, no such reasons have been made out by the parties apart from their apprehension that the proceedings before the learned Sessions Court may be protracted and that the matter has been pending before this Court for quite some time. The present case relates to the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and while the Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly emphasized that there is a requirement of expeditious disposal of such matters, the same cannot come in way of judicial propriety to honour the hierarchy of Courts. It is incumbent on this Court to cede jurisdiction to a more appropriate forum. 21. Any issue in relation to apprehended protraction of proceedings can....