LexM/S CELESTIUM FINANCIAL versus A. GNANASEKARAN ETC
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2612 : 2025 INSC 804 M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. (Criminal Appeal No(s). 1868-70 of 2025) 08 April 2025 [B.V. Nagarathna* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the maintainability of an appeal under proviso to s.372 CrPC against order of acquittal in a case instituted upon a private complaint u/s.138 Negotiable Instruments Act, by treating the complainant in such proceeding as a victim within the meaning ascribed to the term u/s.2(wa) CrPC. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.2(wa), 372, 378, 200 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 – Respondents issued cheques to appellant against the loan facility availed from the appellant – Cheques dishonoured with the endorsement “funds insufficient” on presentation – Statutory demand notices by appellant – Non-compliance by respondents – Criminal complaints by appellant against the respondents, however, the magistrate acquitted them – Appellant filed petitions before the High Court seeking special leave to appeal u/s.378(4) which were dismissed – Correctness: Held: Victim of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal inter alia, against an order of acquittal in terms of the proviso to s.372, irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not – Such victim need not advert to sub-section (4) of s.378, which mandates obtaining special leave to appeal from the High Court – Thus, the person who is a complainant u/s.200 who complains about the offence committed by a person who is charged as an accused u/s.138 of the 1881 Act, thus has the right to prefer an appeal as a victim under the proviso to s.372 – Right to prefer an appeal is a statutory right – Right of a victim of an offence to prefer an appeal cannot be equated with the right of the State or the complainant to prefer an appeal – Thus, the statutory rigours for filing of an appeal by * Author [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2613 M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. the State or by complainant against order of acquittal cannot be read into the proviso to s.372 so as to restrict the right of a victim to file an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein, when none exists – Thus, if a victim who is a complainant, proceeds u/s.378, the necessity of seeking special leave to appeal would arise but if a victim whether he is a complainant or not, files an appeal in terms of proviso to s.372, then the mandate of seeking special leave to appeal would not arise – In the context of offences under NI Act, particularly u/s.138, the complainant is clearly the aggrieved party who has suffered economic loss and injury due to the default in payment by accused owing to the dishonour of cheque which is deemed to be an offence under that provision – It would be just, reasonable and in consonance with the spirit of the CrPC to hold that the complainant under NI Act also qualifies as a victim within the meaning of s.2(wa) – Consequently, such complainant ought to be extended the benefit of the proviso to s.372, thereby enabling him to maintain an appeal against an order of acquittal in his own right without having to seek special leave u/s.378(4) – Symmetrical to a victim of an offence, a victim of a deemed offence u/s.138 also has the right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing an inadequate compensation – Thus, u/s.138 both the complainant as well as the victim are one and the same person – Impugned order set aside – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.139-143. [Paras 7.7, 7.8-11] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.372, 378 – Appeal to be preferred by the complainant – Complainant also the victim, or complainant only an informant – Difference: Held: s.378 clearly indicate that in case the complainant intends to file an appeal against the order of acquittal, his right is circumscribed by certain conditions precedent – If the complainant is not a victim and the case is instituted upon a complaint, then sub-section (4) requires that the complainant must seek special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal from the High Court – However, if the complainant is also a victim, he could proceed under the proviso to s.372, in which case the rigour of sub-section (4) of s.378, which mandates obtaining special leave to appeal, would not arise at all, as he can prefer an appeal as a victim and as a matter of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.