Supreme Court of India
M/S CELESTIUM FINANCIALversusA. GNANASEKARAN ETC
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 804
- Decided
- 8 April 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- B V NAGARATHNA
Holding
A complainant in a Section 138 cheque‑bounce case is a victim under Section 2(wa) CrPC and may prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 without seeking special leave under Section 378(4).
Summary
M/s Celestium Financial, a finance partnership, sued three borrowers for dishonouring cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial magistrate acquitted the borrowers, finding the complainant had not proved a legally enforceable debt. The appellant sought special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the CrPC, which the High Court denied. The Supreme Court examined whether a complainant in a cheque‑bounce case is also a "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC and thus entitled to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 without seeking special leave. Relying on the legislative intent of the 2008 amendment and prior jurisprudence, the Court held that the complainant is a victim and may file an appeal as a matter of right. Consequently, the High Court’s order refusing leave was set aside and the appellant was directed to file an appeal under Section 372 within four months.
Issues considered
- The maintainability of an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC by a complainant in a private complaint under Section 138 NI Act.
- Whether a complainant in a cheque‑bounce case qualifies as a "victim" within the meaning of Section 2(wa) CrPC.
- Whether the complainant must obtain special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC when he is also a victim.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 200, s. 2(wa), s. 372, s. 378, s. 378(3), s. 378(4), s. 378(6)
- Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008
- Constitution of India
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881s. 138, s. 139, s. 141, s. 142, s. 143
Headnote
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 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
Subjects
Dishonour of chequeFunds insufficientVictimComplainantStatutory demand noticeVictims right to appealNegotiable Instruments ActCriminal Procedure CodeSection 138Section 372 provisoSection 378Law Commission reportsJustice Malimath Committee
Judgment
[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
right – Thus, if a victim who is a complainant, proceeds u/s.378,
2614 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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. [Para 7.11]
Words and phrases – Victim – Meaning and scope – Discussed.
[Para 6.2-6.7.2]
Case Law Cited
Mallikarjun Kodagali (dead) represented through Legal
representative v. State of Karnataka [2018] 13 SCR 1 : (2019) 2
SCC 752; Esher Singh v. State A.P. [2004] 2 SCR 1180 : (2004)
11 SCC 585; Birichh Bhuian v. State of Bihar [1963] Supp. 2 SCR
328 : AIR 1963 SC 1120; Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak
Mahajan [1994] 1 SCR 445 : (1994) 3 SCC 440 – referred to.
Books and Periodicals Cited
Black’s Law Dictionary; Advanced Law Lexicon by P Ramanatha
Aiyar, 6th Edition, Volume I – referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881; Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment)
Act, 2008.
List of Keywords
Dishonour of cheque; Funds insufficient; Victim; Complainant;
Statutory demand notice; Justice Malimath Committee; Report
on ‘Reforms of Criminal Justice System’; Victims right to appeal;
154th Report of the Law Commission; Committee on the Draft
National Policy on Criminal Justice; Professor Madhava Menon
Committee Report; Victim-oriented criminal justice; 221st Report
of Law Commission of India; Couched in negative language; Loss;
Injury; Criminologist B. Mendelsohn; Four fundamental criteria
of a victim; Social character of suffering; Social implications of
injurious act; Inferiority complex; Victimology; Charge; Accused
of any offence; Deeming fiction; Deemed offence; Special leave
to appeal; Mallikarjun Kodagali’s case; United Nations General
Assembly’s Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims
of Crime and Abuse of Power (1985).
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2615
M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s).
1868-1870 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.06.2024 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in CRLOP Nos. 929, 931 and 1034 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Adv. for the Appellant:
Danish Zubair Khan.
Advs. for the Respondents:
G. Sivabalamurugan, Selvaraj Mahendran, Ms. Meenakshi Rawat,
C. Adhikesavan, Ms. Ratna Priya Pradhan, Harikrishnan P.V.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Nagarathna, J.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals have been preferred by the appellant against the
common judgment dated 12.06.2024 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Madras in Crl. O.P. Nos.929, 931 and 1034 of 2024
in Crl. A. SR. Nos.1282, 1300 and 1321 of 2024.
2.1 The central issue arising for adjudication in the instant appeals
is, whether an appeal would be maintainable under the proviso
to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
short, “CrPC”) against an order of acquittal passed in a case
instituted upon a private complaint under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the Act”), by
treating the complainant in such a proceeding as a victim
within the meaning ascribed to the term under Section 2(wa)
of the CrPC.
Factual Background:
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case according to the appellant are
as under:
2616 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
3.1 The appellant herein is the complainant being a registered
partnership firm engaged in the business of finance. The
appellant had extended financial assistance to the respondents
over a period of time. It is the case of the appellant that
respondent No.1 was the principal borrower and in order to avail
further credit, he obtained additional loans through respondent
Nos.2 and 3, who acted at his behest. Respondent No.1 is
stated to be carrying on a catering business under the name
and style of “R.R. Caterers”.
3.2 Respondent No.1 had on earlier occasions availed several loans
from the appellant. As on 27.04.2015, an outstanding sum of
Rs. 16,00,000/- stood due from him. Seeking further financial
accommodation, respondent No.1 along with his spouse entered
into a sale agreement dated 15.05.2015 with one Mr. S. Babu,
an employee of the appellant. Pursuant thereto, a further sum
of Rs. 20,00,000/- was sanctioned to him carrying interest at
18% per annum.
3.3 Thereafter, on 13.05.2016, respondent No.2 availed a loan
of Rs. 15,00,000/- from the appellant at an interest of 20%
per annum, repayable in twelve equal monthly instalments of
Rs. 1,25,000/. Respondent No.2 made partial repayments through
cash deposits dated 09.06.2016, 30.09.2016, and 15.07.2017.
Subsequently, on 30.11.2016, respondent No.3 availed a loan
of Rs. 12,00,000/- from the appellant, carrying interest at the
rate of 24% per annum. The loan was repayable over a period
of twelve months with EMIs fixed at Rs. 1,00,000/- each.
3.4 Thereafter, on 31.05.2017, respondent No.1 availed a further
loan facility from the appellant to the tune of Rs. 21,00,000/-,
carrying interest at 24% per annum. The interest component,
amounting to Rs. 2,94,000/-, was deducted upfront, and the net
sum of Rs. 18,06,000/- was disbursed to respondent No.1. The
loan was repayable over a period of seven months in equated
monthly instalments of Rs. 3,00,000/- each.
3.5 A few months later, on 17.07.2017, respondent No.1 secured an
additional loan from the appellant in a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/-,
with interest agreed at 22.5% per annum. From the sanctioned
amount, Rs. 1,42,500/- was appropriated towards interest and
the net principal of Rs. 13,57,500/- was determined. On the
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2617
M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.
specific request of respondent No.1, one EMI of Rs. 3,00,000/-
pertaining to the earlier loan was deducted and the effective
disbursal was Rs. 10,57,500/-. The loan was structured to be
repaid in five monthly instalments of Rs. 3,00,000/- each.
3.6 Subsequently, on 11.09.2017, respondent No.1 once again
sought financial assistance and was sanctioned a further sum
of Rs. 25,00,000/- carrying interest at the rate of 18% per
annum. After deducting interest to an extent of Rs. 3,75,000/-,
the net amount available stood at Rs. 21,25,000/-. At the
instance of respondent No.1, two EMIs of Rs. 3,00,000/- each
relating to earlier borrowings were adjusted and a final amount
of Rs.15,25,000/- was disbursed. The loan tenure was fixed at
ten months with equated monthly instalments of Rs. 2,50,000/-.
3.7 In partial discharge of his liability, respondent No.2 issued
a cheque bearing No.145325 dated 29.10.2018 for a sum
of Rs. 6,25,000/- in favour of the appellant. However, upon
presentation of the said cheque on 30.10.2018, it was
dishonoured with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. Similarly,
respondent No.3 issued a cheque bearing no. 491078 dated
24.10.2018 for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- and when the
same was presented on 30.10.2018, it was returned unpaid
on 31.10.2018 for identical reasons.
3.8 Thereafter, the appellant issued separate statutory notices
dated 12.11.2018 under Section 138 of the Act, calling upon
respondent Nos.2 and 3 to honour the respective amounts.
Upon their failure to comply, the appellant instituted criminal
complaints before the Fast Track Court at Alandur, which came
to be registered as C.C. No. 417 of 2018 and C.C. No. 418 of
2018 respectively.
3.9 In discharge of his liability, respondent No.1 issued three
cheques bearing nos. 000150, 000191, and 000192, all dated
28.03.2019, in favour of the appellant. The said cheques were
presented for encashment on 21.06.2019 but were returned
dishonoured on 24.06.2019 with the endorsement “Funds
Insufficient”. Consequently, a statutory demand notice dated
08.07.2019 was issued by the appellant to respondent No.1
under Section 138 of the Act. Upon his failure to make good
the payment, the appellant instituted a criminal complaint before
2618 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the Fast Track Court at Alandur which was registered as C.C.
No. 285 of 2019.
3.10 For the sake of clarity and convenience, the particulars of
the cheques issued by the respondents said to be towards
discharge of their respective liabilities are as follows:
Sl. Cheque Issued Amount Date of Date of Case
No No. by: (Rs.) Issuance of Dishonour No.
cheques of cheques
1 145325 Respt. Rs. 6,25,000 29.10.2018 31.10.2018 C.C.
No.2 No.
417 of
2018
2 491078 Respt. Rs.10,00,000 24.10.2018 31.10.2018 C.C.
No.3 No.
418 of
2018
3 000150 Rs. 9,00,000 28.03.2019 24.06.2019 C.C.
Respt. No.
4 000191 Rs. 12,00,000
No.1 285 of
5 000192 Rs. 25,00,000 2019
3.11 By separate judgments dated 07.11.2023, the learned Judicial
Magistrate acquitted respondent Nos.1 to 3 for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Act in terms of Section
255(1) of the CrPC. The acquittal was premised on the finding
that the appellant had failed to discharge the burden of proving
the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability and further,
respondent Nos.1 to 3 succeeded in rebutting the statutory
presumption available to the complainant under Section 139
of the said Act.
3.12 Being aggrieved by the judgments dated 07.11.2023, the
appellant preferred petitions before the High Court seeking
special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the CrPC in
Criminal Appeal SR Nos.1282, 1300 and 1321 of 2024 by
assailing the judgments rendered in C.C. Nos. 417 of 2018,
418 of 2018 and 285 of 2019, dated 07.11.2023.
3.13 By the common impugned order dated 12.06.2024, the High
Court dismissed the petitions filed by the appellant seeking
leave to appeal. The High Court observed that the grant of
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2619
M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.
leave under Section 378(4) of the CrPC is not a mere formality
but a substantive safeguard designed to protect the rights of
persons who, having been acquitted of criminal charges, ought
not to be subjected to further protracted litigation. It was further
held that the grant of leave is contingent upon the petitioner
before the Appellate Court to establish a prima facie case
that warrants interference. Referring to the present case, the
High Court held that the appellant could not demonstrate that
the conclusions arrived at by the learned Magistrate are so
perverse or manifestly erroneous as to result in a miscarriage
of justice. In the absence of such compelling grounds, the
High Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction
to grant leave to appeal. It is in these circumstances that the
appellant has approached this Court by way of the present
appeal assailing the legality and correctness of the impugned
order of the High Court dated 12.06.2024.
Submissions:
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned senior
counsel for the respondent at length. We have also perused the
material on record and the judgments cited at the Bar.
4.1 Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the High
Court was not right in refusing to grant leave under Section
378(4) of the CrPC on the ground that the appellant had not
demonstrated that the conclusions arrived at by the Magistrate
were erroneous or contrary to law. The High Court ought to
have exercised its discretion by granting leave to the appellant
to prosecute his appeal inasmuch as the impugned order has
now made the appellant remediless.
4.2 Alternatively, it was submitted that the appellant could also
be construed to be a victim of the offence committed by the
accused under Section 138 of the Act. If that is so, then as
a victim the appellant has a right to assail the judgment of
acquittal as per the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC. In
such an event, the need for obtaining leave to file an appeal
would not arise at all. In this regard, proviso to Section 372
was contrasted with sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the
CrPC. It was contended that under proviso to Section 372
which has been in force with effect from 31.12.2009, as it
2620 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
was added by way of an amendment, the victim of an offence
has a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by
the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser
offence or imposing inadequate compensation. Such an
appeal would lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily
lies against the order of conviction of such Court. The right
to file an appeal by a victim of an offence under the provision
to Section 372 CrPC is not circumscribed by the necessity of
obtaining leave to file an appeal. It was contended that under
sub-section (4) of Section 378 which deals with an appeal
against a judgment of acquittal in any case instituted upon
a complaint then on an application made to the High Court
by the complainant, it is only when special leave to appeal
is granted by the High Court from the order of acquittal, that
the complainant may present such an appeal to the High
Court. In the present case, the complaint under Section 138
of the Act was no doubt filed by the appellant herein but not
merely as a complainant but as a victim of the offence under
Section 138 of the Act. It was submitted that in all cases, the
victim may not be the complainant and vice-a-versa but if the
victim is also the complainant, then the victim could always
proceed under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC rather
than as a complainant under sub-section (4) of Section 378
of the CrPC. Therefore, in the instant case, the appellant
herein who ought to be considered as a victim of the offence
under Section 138 of the Act having been committed by the
accused has the right to prefer an appeal under Section 372
of the CrPC. Therefore, it was wholly unnecessary for the
appellant to have obtained special leave to appeal from the
High Court. For this reason also, the impugned order may be
set-aside and the matter may be remanded to the High Court
so that the High Court would enable the appellant herein to
file his appeal before the competent appellate Court. Learned
counsel for the appellant, therefore, sought for setting-aside
of the impugned order.
4.3 Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/accused
submitted that the order of the High Court was on merits
and that the appellant has not proved his case against the
respondents herein. Therefore, the learned Magistrate rightly
acquitted the respondents herein. The High Court was also
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2621
M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.
justified in declining to grant the special leave to appeal from
the order of acquittal. There is no merit in the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant
is the complainant and, therefore, he sought for special leave
to appeal from the High Court against the judgment of acquittal
which has rightly been declined. Therefore, there is no merit in
this appeal and, therefore, the same may be dismissed.
5. In Mallikarjun Kodagali (dead) represented through Legal
representative vs. State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752
(“Mallikarjun Kodagali”), there is a reference to four reports that
have dealt with the rights of victims of crime and the remedies
available to them. The same may be briefly discussed as under:
i. The first report is the 154th Report of the Law Commission of
India of August, 1996. The said Report touched upon, inter
alia, compensation to be paid to the victim of crime, their
rehabilitation, etc.
ii. In March 2003, Justice Malimath Committee submitted its report
on ‘Reforms of Criminal Justice System’. Paragraph 2.21 in
the Chapter on Adversarial Rights under the sub-heading of
‘Victims Right to Appeal’, states as under:
“2.21. The victim or his representative who is a party
to the trial should have a right to prefer an appeal
against any adverse order passed by the trial court.
In such an appeal he could challenge the acquittal,
or conviction for a lesser offence or inadequacy of
sentence, or in regard to compensation payable to
the victim. The appellate court should have the same
powers as the trial court in regard to assessment of
evidence and awarding of sentence.”
There is also discussion on other rights of victims under
the Chapter titled, ‘Justice to Victims’. In paragraph 6.(14)
(v), Justice Malimath Committee made the following
recommendations:
“6. (14)(v) The victim shall have a right to prefer an
appeal against any adverse order passed by the
court acquitting the accused, convicting for a lesser
offence, imposing inadequate sentence, or granting
2622 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
inadequate compensation. Such appeal shall lie to
the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against
the order of conviction of such court.”
iii. In July 2007, a Report of the Committee on the Draft National
Policy on Criminal Justice was submitted which is also known
as ‘Professor Madhava Menon Committee Report’. Observations
with regard to providing victim-oriented criminal justice and a
balance between the constitutional rights of an accused and
victim of crime have been discussed. One of the suggestions
made is that the victim must be impleaded in the trial proceedings
so that such a party would have right to file an appeal against
an adverse order, particularly an order of acquittal.
iv. In the 221st Report of the Law Commission of India submitted
in April, 2009, it has been noted that as the law then stood,
an aggrieved person could not file an appeal against an order
of acquittal. However, a revision petition could be filed. Noting
that the powers of a revisional court are limited and the process
involved is cumbersome, a recommendation was made by the
Law Commission that as against an order of acquittal passed
by a Magistrate, a victim should be entitled to file an appeal
before the revisional court. Similarly, in complaint cases, the
appeal should be provided to the Sessions Court instead of
the High Court. However, it was suggested that the aggrieved
person or complainant should have the right to prefer an appeal
with the leave of the appellate court.
v. It was further recommended that Section 378 of the CrPC
requires an amendment with a view to enable filing of appeals
in complaint cases also in the Sessions Court, of course, subject
to the grant of special leave by it. Limited scope of powers of a
revisional court under Section 401 of the CrPC was taken note
of and it was suggested that there is a need to amend the CrPC.
5.1 Taking note of the aforesaid reports an amendment was brought
to Section 372 of the CrPC with effect from 31.12.2009 by
adding a proviso thereto.
5.2 The decisions of the Full Benches of the High Courts in the
matter of interpretation of the proviso to Section 372 of the
CrPC are highlighted by this Court in the case of Mallikarjun
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2623
M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.
Kodagali. There are also Division Bench decisions of the High
Courts taking different views.
Mallikarjun Kodagali:
5.3 This Court in Mallikarjun Kodagali, speaking through Lokur, J.
referred to the Declaration of the Basic Principles of Justice for
Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power adopted by the General
Assembly of the United Nations in the 96th Plenary Session
on 29.11.1985. It was observed in paragraphs 74, 75 & 76
as under:
“74. Putting the Declaration to practice, it is quite
obvious that the victim of an offence is entitled to a
variety of rights. Access to mechanisms of justice
and redress through formal procedures as provided
for in national legislation, must include the right to
file an appeal against an order of acquittal in a case
such as the one that we are presently concerned
with. Considered in this light, there is no doubt that
the proviso to Section 372 CrPC must be given life,
to benefit the victim of an offence.
75. Under the circumstances, on the basis of the
plain language of the law and also as interpreted by
several High Courts and in addition the resolution
of the General Assembly of the United Nations, it is
quite clear to us that a victim as defined in Section
2(wa) CrPC would be entitled to file an appeal before
the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against
the order of conviction. …
76. … The language of the proviso to Section 372
CrPC is quite clear, particularly when it is contrasted
with the language of Section 378(4) CrPC. The text
of this provision is quite clear and it is confined to an
order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon a
complaint. The word “complaint” has been defined in
Section 2(d) CrPC and refers to any allegation made
orally or in writing to a Magistrate. This has nothing
to do with the lodging or the registration of an FIR,
2624 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
and therefore it is not at all necessary to consider
the effect of a victim being the complainant as far
as the proviso to Section 372 CrPC is concerned.”
Consequently, the appeals in the said case were allowed and
the judgment and order of the High Court was set aside and the
matter was remanded to the High Court to hear and decide the
appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal once again.
5.4 In the said judgment, Deepak Gupta, J. was in complete
agreement with Lokur, J. on the fact that victims must be
permitted to access justice because it is sometimes found that
the investigating and prosecuting agency do not follow up cases
with zeal which is required and therefore proviso to Section
372 of the CrPC must be given a meaning which is realistic,
liberal, progressive and beneficial to the victim of the offences.
However, Deepak Gupta, J. was of the opinion that one cannot
ignore the rights of the accused and the procedure prescribed
by law. Hence, he disagreed with Lokur, J.’s view that a victim
can file an appeal in the High Court without seeking leave to
appeal in terms of Section 378(3) of the CrPC.
5.5 The only difference of opinion was with regard to whether the
victim is required to seek leave of the High Court even in an
appeal filed in the High Court. While dealing with this issue, it
was observed by Deepak Gupta, J. that prior to the insertion
of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, the victim had
no right to file an appeal unless he was also a complainant.
This was because the State would represent the victim of the
crime. Therefore, the question, whether the victim, while filing
an appeal against the acquittal of an accused under proviso
to Section 372 of the CrPC in the High Court, is required to
obtain leave under Section 378(3) of the CrPC was answered
in the affirmative. In this regard, reference was made to sub-
section (4) of Section 378 which deals with an appeal filed by
the complainant. In case the order of acquittal is passed in a
case instituted upon a complaint, in such a case, an appeal
has to be filed in the High Court. Such an appeal cannot be
entertained unless the High Court grants special leave to
appeal from the order of acquittal. Sub-section (5) provides the
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2625
M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.
limitation period for filing the petition for grant of special leave
to appeal in terms of sub-section (4). Sub-section (6) lays down
that in case the application for special leave to appeal filed by
a complainant under sub-section (4) is refused, then, no appeal
from that order of acquittal shall lie under sub-section (1) or
under sub-section (2). Thus, in a complaint case, complainant
can file an appeal only by seeking special leave to appeal in
case the appeal lay before the High Court.
5.6 Dealing with the concept of leave to appeal, especially when
the appeals are filed in the High Court, it was observed by
Deepak Gupta, J. that the presumption of innocence of every
accused is fortified and strengthened when the said accused
is acquitted by the trial court. Therefore, the High Court, at the
initial stage of deciding whether the leave is to be granted or
not, can go into the merits of the case and only if there are
arguable points involved, would the High Court grant leave to
appeal. This preliminary stage is provided to prevent meritless
appeals being filed before the High Court and to ensure that
innocent persons are not drawn to the High Court at the
appellate stage.
5.7 It was further noted that an appeal against an order of acquittal
passed by a Magistrate in respect of cognizable and non-
bailable offences would lie to the Sessions Court and no leave
to appeal is required. However, an appeal with respect to
offences which are non-cognizable or bailable would lie to the
High Court. In such cases, leave to appeal is a prerequisite.
The remaining kinds of appeals are those appeals which lie to
the High Court against the judgments of the Sessions Court.
These are serious criminal matters relating to graver offences.
5.8 Even appeals against acquittals filed before the High Court
must be scrutinized with greater care. As opposed to Section
378(4) of the CrPC, where a complainant would file an appeal
against an order of acquittal which would require special leave
to appeal being obtained, in the case of an appeal filed by
a victim under proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, no such
leave to appeal is required. Then the question raised was,
whether, a victim is to be placed on a higher pedestal than
2626 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the complainant, although in certain cases, the victim and
the complainant may be one and the same person. Deepak
Gupta, J. considered a situation where there are two victims
in a case and one of the victims files a complaint and sets
the wheels of justice moving and the case is tried as a
complaint case and the accused is acquitted. In such a case,
the complainant would have to seek special leave to appeal
whereas the victim who had not even approached the Court
at the initial stage would be entitled to file an appeal without
seeking leave to appeal. While considering this situation,
Deepak Gupta, J. observed that while expanding the rights of
the victim to file an appeal, such right must be balanced with
the rights of the accused. Hence, it was the view of Deepak
Gupta, J. that even in a case when an appeal is filed by a
victim, there has to be scrutiny and special leave to appeal
must be obtained as the victim cannot be placed on a higher
pedestal than the State or the complainant. It was his view
that by this condition being imposed, the right of the victim to
file an appeal is not taken away or in any way diluted. Thus,
according to his view, Sections 378 (3), 378 (4) and 372 of
the CrPC have to be read together and the victim is also
required to apply for leave to appeal before his appeal can be
entertained. Therefore, Deepak Gupta, J. concluded that the
right to file an appeal vested in the victim cannot be higher
than the right of filing an appeal which inheres in the State
and the complainant in a complaint case. Thus, if a victim files
an appeal against acquittal in the High Court, he has to seek
leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the CrPC.
5.9 If the interpretation as suggested by learned senior counsel for
the respondent is to be accepted by restricting the right of a
complainant in a cheque bounce case to file an appeal under
Section 378(3) of the CrPC subject to the conditions mentioned
thereto, we find that such a right would not only be illusory
but contrary to the intent and purpose of the amendment to
Section 372 of the CrPC, whereby the proviso thereto has been
added with effect from 31.12.2009 to give a right of an appeal
to a victim without there being any condition circumscribing
such a right.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2627
M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.
5.10 In light of the two opposite views expressed in the above
judgment of this Court, it is necessary to discuss certain
provisions of the CrPC and arrive at our own conclusions on
the point for consideration. We observe that we are inclined
to follow the view taken by Lokur, J. insofar as the right of a
victim of a crime to file an appeal is concerned.
Analysis of the Relevant Provisions of CrPC:
6. Section 2 is the definition clause under which relevant definitions
are extracted as under:
“2. Definitions.—In this Code, unless the context
otherwise requires,—
xxx
(d) “complaint” means any allegation made orally or in
writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action
under this Code, that some person, whether known or
unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include
a police report.
Explanation.—A report made by a police officer in a case
which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a
non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint;
and the police officer by whom such report is made shall
be deemed to be the complainant;
xxx
(n) “offence” means any act or omission made punishable
by any law for the time being in force and includes any
act in respect of which a complaint may be made under
section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871 (1 of 1871);
xxx
(wa) “victim” means a person who has suffered any loss
or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which
the accused person has been charged and the expression
“victim” includes his or her guardian or legal heir;
xxx
2628 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
24. Public Prosecutors.-
xxx
(8) The Central Government or the State Government may
appoint, for the purposes of any case or class of cases,
a person who has been in practice as an advocate for
not less than ten years as a Special Public Prosecutor:
Provided that the Court may permit the victim to engage
an advocate of his choice to assist the prosecution under
this sub-section.
CHAPTER XV
COMPLAINTS TO MAGISTRATES
200. Examination of complainant.—A Magistrate taking
cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon
oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any,
and the substance of such examination shall be reduced
to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the
witnesses, and also by the Magistrate:
Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the
Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the
witnesses—
(a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the
discharge of his official duties or a Court has made
the complaint; or
(b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or
trial to another Magistrate under section 192:
Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the case
to another Magistrate under section 192 after examining
the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate
need not re-examine them.
xxx
CHAPTER XXIX
APPEALS
372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided.—
No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2629
M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.
Court except as provided for by this Code by any other
law for the time being in force:
Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an
appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting
the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing
inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the
Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order
of conviction of such Court.
xxx
377. Appeal by the State Government against
sentence.—(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-
section (2), the State Government may, in any case of
conviction on a trial held by any Court other than a High
Court, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal
against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy—
(a) to the Court of Session, if the sentence is passed
by the Magistrate; and
(b) to the High Court, if the sentence is passed by
any other Court.
(2) If such conviction is in a case in which the offence
has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police
Establishment, constituted under the Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or by any other
agency empowered to make investigation into an offence
under any Central Act other than this Code, the Central
Government may also direct the Public Prosecutor to
present an appeal against the sentence on the ground of
its inadequacy—
(a) to the Court of Session, if the sentence is passed by
the Magistrate; and
(b) to the High Court, if the sentence is passed by any
other Court.
(3) When an appeal has been filed against the sentence
on the ground of its inadequacy, the Court of Session or,
as the case may be, the High Court shall not enhance the
sentence except after giving to the accused a reasonable
2630 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement
and while showing cause, the accused may plead for his
acquittal or for the reduction of the sentence.
(4) When an appeal has been filed against a sentence
passed under section 376, section 376A, section 376AB,
section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA,
section 376DB or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860), the appeal shall be disposed of within a
period of six months from the date of filing of such appeal.
378. Appeal in case of acquittal.—(1) Save as otherwise
provided in sub-section (2), and subject to the provisions
of sub-sections (3) and (5),—
(a) the District Magistrate may, in any case, direct the
Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the Court
of Session from an order of acquittal passed by a
Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable
offence;
(b) the State Government may, in any case, direct the
Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High
Court from an original or appellate order of acquittal
passed by any Court other than a High Court not
being an order under clause (a) or an order of acquittal
passed by the Court of Session in revision.
(2) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case
in which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi
Special Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or by
any other agency empowered to make investigation into
an offence under any Central Act other than this Code,
the Central Government may, subject to the provisions
of sub-section (3), also direct the Public Prosecutor to
present an appeal—
(a) to the Court of Session, from an order of acquittal
passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable
and non-bailable offence;
(b) to the High Court from an original or appellate order
of an acquittal passed by any Court other than a
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2631
M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.
High Court not being an order under clause (a) or
an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session
in revision.
(3) No appeal to the High Court under sub-section (1) or
sub-section (2) shall be entertained except with the leave
of the High Court.
(4) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case
instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an
application made to it by the complainant in this behalf,
grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal,
the complainant may present such an appeal to the High
Court.
(5) No application under sub-section (4) for the grant of
special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal shall
be entertained by the High Court after the expiry of six
months, where the complainant is a public servant, and
sixty days in every other case, computed from the date
of that order of acquittal.
(6) If, in any case, the application under sub-section (4)
for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of
acquittal is refused, no appeal from that order of acquittal
shall lie under sub-section (1) or under sub-section (2).
xxx
386. Powers of the Appellate Court.—After perusing
such record and hearing the appellant or his pleader, if
he appears, and the Public Prosecutor if he appears, and
in case of an appeal under section 377 or section 378,
the accused, if he appears, the Appellate Court may, if it
considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering,
dismiss the appeal, or may—
(a) in an appeal from an order or acquittal, reverse such
order and direct that further inquiry be made, or that
the accused be re-tried or committed for trial, as the
case may be, or find him guilty and pass sentence
on him according to law;
(b) in an appeal from a conviction—
2632 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or
discharge the accused, or order him to be re-tried
by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate
to such Appellate Court or committed for trial, or
(ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or
(iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the
nature or the extent, or the nature and extent,
of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the
same—
(c) in an appeal for enhancement of sentence—
(i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or
discharge the accused or order him to be re-
tried by a Court competent to try the offence, or
(ii) alter the finding maintaining the sentence, or
(iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the
nature or the extent, or, the nature and extent,
of the sentence, so as to enhance or reduce
the same;
(d) in an appeal from any other order, alter or reverse
such order;
(e) make any amendment or any consequential or
incidental order that may be just or proper:
Provided that the sentence shall not be enhanced unless
the accused has had an opportunity of showing cause
against such enhancement:
Provided further that the Appellate Court shall not inflict
greater punishment for the offence which in its opinion the
accused has committed, than might have been inflicted for
that offence by the Court passing the order or sentence
under appeal.”
6.1 Chapter XXIX of the CrPC deals with appeals. The said Chapter
delineates the statutory framework governing appeals. Section
372 unequivocally declares that no appeal shall lie from any
judgment or order of a criminal court except as provided for by
the CrPC itself or by any other law for the time being in force.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2633
M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.
In fact, Section 372 of the CrPC speaks of an embargo on the
filing of an appeal from any judgment or order of a criminal
court except as provided for by the CrPC or by any other law
for the time being in force. Section 372 is couched in a negative
language and it states that no appeal shall lie from any judgment
or order of a criminal court except as provided for by the CrPC
or by any other law for the time being in force. Section 372 is
a preface to the chapter on appeals which in substance states
that appeal can be filed only in accordance with what has been
stated in the provisions to follow Section 372. The proviso was
introduced to Section 372 by the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 2008 (Act 5 of 2009), which came into effect
from 31.12.2009. By virtue of this amendment, a limited right
of appeal has been conferred upon the victim of an offence.
On a reading of the proviso to Section 372, it is apparent that
a victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against: (i) any
order passed by the court acquitting the accused or (ii) convicting
for a lesser offence or (iii) imposing inadequate compensation.
Such appeal shall lie to the court to which an appeal ordinarily
lies against the order of conviction of such court. In fact, with
effect from 31.12.2009 when clause (wa) to Section 2 was
inserted to the definition of victim, proviso to Section 24 was
also added which provides that the Court may permit the victim
to engage an advocate of his choice to assist the prosecution
under the said sub-section.
6.1.1 Further, with effect from 31.12.2009, Section 357A and
Section 357B were inserted to the CrPC in the form of
victim compensation scheme for providing compensation
to the victim or his dependants who have suffered loss or
injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation.
The compensation payable by the State Government
under Section 357A is in addition to the payment of fine
to the victim of offences under Section 326A, Section
376AB, Section376D, Section 376DA and Section 376DB
of the Indian Penal Code. Also, Section 357C states that
all hospitals, public or private, whether run by the Central
Government, the State Government, local bodies or any
other person, shall immediately, provide the first-aid or
medical treatment, free of cost, to the victims of any
offence covered under the aforesaid Sections.
2634 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
6.2 While Section 374 of the CrPC deals with appeals from
convictions with which we are not concerned in this case, what
is of relevance is Section 378 which deals with appeal in case
of acquittal. The remedy of an appeal against an acquittal is
couched in certain conditions which are evident on a reading
of sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 378 of the CrPC vis-à-vis
an appeal that could be filed by a complainant. However, the
Parliament in its wisdom amended Section 372 of the CrPC
by adding a proviso thereto by virtue of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (Amendment) Act 2008 (5 of 2009), (with effect from
31.12.2009). It is hence necessary to unravel the definition of
victim in clause (wa) of Section 2 of the CrPC which was also
introduced along with proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC. A
victim is defined to mean a person who has suffered any loss
or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the
accused person has been charged and the expression victim
includes his or her guardian or legal heir;
6.3 The expression injury, as defined in Section 44 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 includes:
“Any harm whatever illegally caused to any
person, in body, mind, reputation or property.”
6.3.1 Similarly, Black’s Law Dictionary defines injury to include
property damage, bodily harm, or violation of a legal right.
6.3.2 Additionally, the United Nations General Assembly’s
Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims
of Crime and Abuse of Power (1985) provides a broad
and inclusive definition of victim. According to Article 1
of the Declaration:
“Victim means persons who, individually or
collectively, have suffered harm through acts
or omissions which involve physical or mental
injury, emotional distress, economic loss or
substantial impairment of their fundamental
rights.”
6.3.3 Further, Article 2 extends the definition of victim to include
immediate family members, dependents, or those who
have intervened to assist a victim in crisis.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2635
M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.
6.4 On a reading of the definition of ‘victim’, it is clear that the
said expression is initially exhaustive and thereafter inclusive.
The expression ‘victim’ means a person who has suffered
any loss or injury. The loss or injury could be either physical,
mental, a financial loss or injury. The expression injury could
also be construed as a legal injury in a wider sense and not
just a physical or a mental injury. The loss or injury must be
caused by reason of an act or omission for which the accused
person has been charged. Thus, it can be both by a positive
act or negatively by an omission which is at the instance of
the accused and for which such accused has been charged.
Further, the expression ‘victim’ also includes his/her guardian
or legal heir in the case of demise of the victim.
6.5 Thus, the expression ‘victim’ has been couched in a broad
manner so as to include a person who has suffered any loss or
injury. The expressions ‘loss’ or ‘injury’ themselves are of a very
broad import which expressions also enlarge the scope of the
expression ‘victim’. Further, the expression ‘victim’ includes not
only the person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by
reason of any act or omission for which the accused person has
been charged but also includes his or her guardian or legal heir
which means that the definition of victim is inclusive in nature.
6.6 Having regard to the insertion of the proviso to Section 372 of
the CrPC, we find that in the case of a victim who seeks to file
an appeal, he or she could proceed under the proviso to Section
372 of the CrPC in the circumstances mentioned therein and
need not prefer an appeal by invoking Section 378(4) of the
CrPC which is in respect of appeals to be filed by a complainant.
It may be that the complainant is a victim in certain cases and
therefore, the victim has the right to file an appeal under the
proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC and need not proceed
under Section 378(4) of the CrPC. However, if the complainant
is not a victim and intends to file an appeal, in such a case a
complainant would have to proceed under Section 378 of the
CrPC which circumscribes the right to file an appeal by virtue
of the conditions which are stipulated under the said Section.
6.6.1 The word ‘victim’ is derived from the latin word “victima”
and originally contained the concept of sacrifice. In
2636 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
more contemporary times, the term ‘victim’ has been
expanded to imply a victim of war, an accident, a scam,
etc. As a scientific concept, according to Criminologist B.
Mendelsohn (1976), a victim may be viewed as containing
four fundamental criteria which are as follows:
• The nature of the determinant that causes
the suffering. The suffering may be physical,
psychological, or both depending on the type of
injurious act.
• The social character of the suffering. This suffering
originates in the victim’s and others’ reaction to the
event.
• The nature of the social factor. The social implications
of the injurious act can have a greater impact,
sometimes, than the physical or psychological
impact.
• The origin of the inferiority complex. This term,
suggested by Mendelsohn, manifests itself as a
feeling of submission that may be followed by a
feeling of revolt. The victim generally attributes his
injury to the culpability of another person.
Victimology thus is a social-structural way of viewing crime and
the law and the criminal and the victim. Insofar as the injury
is concerned apart from there being short time and long time
physical injuries, there could also be economic or financial
loss which are also injuries within the meaning and definition
of victim under clause (wa) of Section 2 of the CrPC.
6.7 While analysing the expression ‘victim’, it is noted that it is with
reference to an accused person who has been charged. Under
the CrPC, the expression charge is defined under clause (b)
of Section 2 which reads as under:
2. Definitions.—In this Code, unless the context
otherwise requires,—
xxx
(b) “charge” includes any head of charge when the
charge contains more heads than one;
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2637
M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.
6.7.1 Besides the omnibus meaning, the CrPC does not define
what a charge is. However, judicial pronouncements tell
us that a charge is actually a precise formulation of the
specific accusation made against a person who is entitled
to know its nature at the earliest stage. The charge is
against a person in respect of an act committed or omitted
in violation of penal law forbidding or commanding it. In
other words, a charge is an accusation made against
a person in respect of offence alleged to have been
committed by him, vide Esher Singh vs. State A.P.,
(2004) 11 SCC 585. In Birichh Bhuian vs. State of Bihar,
AIR 1963 SC 1120, this Court observed that a charge is
not a mere abstraction but a concrete accusation against a
person in respect of an offence and that joinder of charges
is permitted under certain circumstances, whether joinder
is against one person or different persons.
6.7.2 In Advanced Law Lexicon by P Ramanatha Aiyar,
6th Edition, Volume I, a charge is defined to mean an
expression as applied to a crime, sometimes used in a
limited sense, intending the accusation of a crime which
precedes a formal trial; to mean a person charged with
an accusation of a crime. In a fuller and more accurate
sense, the expression charge includes the responsibility
for the crime. As a formal complaint, a charge signifies
an accusation, made in a legal manner of legal conduct,
either of omission or commission by the person charged.
A person charged with a crime means something more
than being suspected or accused of a crime by popular
opinion or rumour and implies that the offence has
been alleged against the accused parties according to
the forms of law. The purpose of a charge is to tell an
accused person as precisely and consciously as possible
of the matter with which he is charged with. Thus, the
expression charge includes the element of offence and
also reference to the person who is alleged to have
committed the offence.
7. For the purpose of applying the aforesaid discussion to the present
case, the following Sections of the Act are relevant and are extracted
as under:
2638 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
“138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of
funds in the account.— Where any cheque drawn by a
person on an account maintained by him with a banker
for payment of any amount of money to another person
from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in
part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank
unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing
to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the
cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid
from that account by an agreement made with that bank,
such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence
and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this
Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may
be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend
to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply
unless—
(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within
a period of six months from the date on which it is
drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever
is earlier;
(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque,
as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment
of the said amount of money by giving a notice in
writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days
of the receipt of information by him from the bank
regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment
of the said amount of money to the payee or, as
the case may be, to the holder in due course of the
cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said
notice.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “debt or
other liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other
liability.
139. Presumption in favour of holder.— It shall be
presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2639
M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.
of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred
to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of
any debt or other liability.
xxx
141. Offences by companies.— (1) If the person
committing an offence under section 138 is a company,
every person who, at the time the offence was committed,
was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for
the conduct of the business of the company, as well as
the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence
and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished
accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall
render any person liable to punishment if he proves that
the offence was committed without his knowledge, or
that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the
commission of such offence:
Provided further that where a person is nominated as
a Director of a company by virtue of his holding any
office or employment in the Central Government or State
Government or a financial corporation owned or controlled
by the Central Government or the State Government, as
the case may be, he shall not be liable for prosecution
under this Chapter.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),
where any offence under this Act has been committed
by a company and it is proved that the offence has
been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is
attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any director,
manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such
director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be
deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to
be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Explanation.— For the purposes of this section, —
(a) “company” means any body corporate and includes
a firm or other association of individuals; and
2640 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(b) “director”, in relation to a firm, means a partner in
the firm.
142. Cognizance of offences.— (1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974),—
(a) no court shall take cognizance of any offence
punishable under section 138 except upon a
complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the
case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque;
(b) such complaint is made within one month of the date
on which the cause of action arises under clause (c)
of the proviso to section 138:
Provided that the cognizance of a complaint may be
taken by the Court after the prescribed period, if the
complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient
cause for not making a complaint within such period;
(c) no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate
or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any
offence punishable under section 138.
(2) The offence under section 138 shall be inquired into
and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction,—
(a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through an
account, the branch of the bank where the payee or
holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains
the account, is situated; or
(b) if the cheque is presented for payment by the payee
or holder in due course, otherwise through an account,
the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer
maintains the account, is situated.
Explanation.—For the purposes of clause (a), where a
cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of the bank
of the payee or holder in due course, then, the cheque
shall be deemed to have been delivered to the branch of
the bank in which the payee or holder in due course, as
the case may be, maintains the account.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2641
M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.
143. Power of Court to try cases summarily.—
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), all offences under
this Chapter shall be tried by a Judicial Magistrate of the
first class or by a Metropolitan Magistrate and the provisions
of sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the said Code
shall, as far as may be, apply to such trials:
Provided that in the case of any conviction in a summary
trial under this section, it shall be lawful for the Magistrate to
pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding
one year and an amount of fine exceeding five thousand
rupees:
Provided further that when at the commencement of, or in
the course of, a summary trial under this section, it appears
to the Magistrate that the nature of the case is such that a
sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
may have to be passed or that it is, for any other reason,
undesirable to try the case summarily, the Magistrate shall
after hearing the parties, record an order to that effect
and thereafter recall any witness who may have been
examined and proceed to hear or rehear the case in the
manner provided by the said Code.
(2) The trial of a case under this section shall, so far as
practicable, consistently with the interests of justice, be
continued from day to day until its conclusion, unless
the Court finds the adjournment of the trial beyond the
following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded
in writing.
(3) Every trial under this section shall be conducted as
expeditiously as possible and an endeavour shall be made
to conclude the trial within six months from the date of
filing of the complaint.
xxx
147. Offences to be compoundable.— Notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act
shall be compoundable.”
2642 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
7.1 In the context of the present case, a person who fails to satisfy
his legal liability to honour a cheque owing to insufficiency of
funds, or other reasons concerning his bank account is deemed
to have committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act and
therefore is charged as an accused for such an offence and
can be punished by imprisonment for a term which may extend
to two years or a fine which may extend to twice the amount
of the cheque or both.
7.2 The expression ‘accused’ is not defined under the CrPC but it
denotes different meanings according to the context in which
it is deployed. It, inter alia, means, a person against whom
there is an accusation, or a person on trial, and so on. The
expression ‘accused’ being used in different context would
remind us of what has been cited by this Court in Directorate
of Enforcement vs. Deepak Mahajan, (1994) 3 SCC 440
wherein Chapter IV of the book titled The Loom of Language
by Frederick Bodmer has been cited in the following words:
“Words are not passive agents meaning the same
thing and carrying the same value at all times and in
all contexts. They do not come in standard shapes
and sizes like coins from the mint, nor do they go forth
with a decree to all the world that they shall mean
only so much, no more and no less. Through its own
particular personality, each word has a penumbra of
meaning which no draftsman can entirely cut away.
It refuses to be used as a mathematical symbol.”
The expression ‘accused of any offence’ would include within
its ambit only a person against whom formal accusation relating
to commission of offence has been levelled which in the normal
course may result in his prosecution.
7.3 When is an accused charged of an offence under Section 138
of the Act would be relevant. It would be pertinent to refer to
Section 200 of CrPC as a proceeding under Section 138 of the
Act is commenced not on the basis of a police report but on
the basis of a complaint filed under Section 200 of the CrPC.
The expression ‘complaint’ is defined under Section 2(d) of
the CrPC to mean an allegation made orally or in writing to a
Magistrate with a view to his taking action under the CrPC, that
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2643
M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.
some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an
offence but does not include a police report.
7.4 When a complaint is filed under Section 200 of the CrPC, a
Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on such complaint
examines upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present,
if any, and the substance of such examination is reduced to
writing which is required to be signed by the complainant and
the witnesses and also the Magistrate. Section 202 of the
CrPC states that any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of
an offence of which he is authorized to take cognizance or
which has been made over to him under Section 192, may, if
he thinks fit, postpone the issue of process, and either inquire
into the case himself or direct an investigation for the purpose of
deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding.
However, no such direction for investigation shall be made
where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless
the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been
examined on oath under Section 200 of the CrPC.
7.5 Chapter XXI of the CrPC deals with summary trials. The said
chapter has to be read in conjunction with Section 143 of the
Act which states that all offences under Chapter XVII of the Act,
including an offence under Section 138 (dishonour of cheque
for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account) shall be tried by a
Judicial Magistrate of First Class or by a Metropolitan Magistrate
and the provisions of Sections 262 to 265 of the CrPC (both
inclusive), shall, as far as may be, apply to such trials. Thus,
for an offence committed under Section 138 of the Act, the
trial is as per Section 143 of the said Act read with Chapter
XXI of the CrPC. The fact that under Section 138 of the Act,
a deeming fiction has been introduced, wherein a person who
comes within the scope and ambit of the section is a person
who is deemed to have committed an offence and could be
punished with both imprisonment as well as with fine, would
mean that such a person is an accused and is charged for the
said offence and tried under Chapter XXI of the CrPC by way
of a summary trial.
7.6 As already noted, the Act does not have a provision for filing of
an appeal. The Act is a special enactment. In the circumstances,
2644 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the CrPC, which is general in nature would have to be resorted
to. The proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC considers the right
of filing of an appeal from the point of view of a victim, which
expression not only includes an injured victim but even the
legal representatives of a deceased victim. The inclusion of
the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC has to be read in the
context of the definition of victim in clause (wa) of Section 2
of the CrPC. The expression ‘victim’ as defined under the said
provision, includes not only the person who has suffered any loss
or injury caused by the reason of the act or omission for which
the accused person has been charged but the said expression
also includes his or her guardian or legal heir.
7.7 In the context of offences under the Act, particularly under
Section 138 of the said Act, the complainant is clearly the
aggrieved party who has suffered economic loss and injury due
to the default in payment by the accused owing to the dishonour
of the cheque which is deemed to be an offence under that
provision. In such circumstances, it would be just, reasonable
and in consonance with the spirit of the CrPC to hold that the
complainant under the Act also qualifies as a victim within the
meaning of Section 2(wa) of the CrPC. Consequently, such a
complainant ought to be extended the benefit of the proviso
to Section 372, thereby enabling him to maintain an appeal
against an order of acquittal in his own right without having to
seek special leave under Section 378(4) of the CrPC.
7.8 In the case of an offence alleged against an accused under
Section 138 of the Act, we are of the view that the complainant
is indeed the victim owing to the alleged dishonour of a cheque.
In the circumstances, the complainant can proceed as per the
proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC and he may exercise such
an option and he need not then elect to proceed under Section
378 of the CrPC.
7.9 In this context, we wish to state that the proviso to Section
372 does not make a distinction between an accused who is
charged of an offence under the penal law or a person who
is deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138
of the Act. Symmetrical to a victim of an offence, a victim of
a deemed offence under Section 138 of the Act also has the
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2645
M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.
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. When viewed from the
perspective of an offence under any penal law or a deemed
offence under Section 138 of the Act, the right to file an appeal
is not circumscribed by any condition as such, so long as the
appeal can be premised in accordance with proviso to Section
372 which is the right to file an appeal by a victim, provided
the circumstances which enable such a victim to file an appeal
are met. The complainant under Section 138 is the victim who
must also have the right to prefer an appeal under the said
provision. Merely because the proceeding under Section 138
of the Act commences with the filing of a complaint under
Section 200 of the CrPC by a complainant, he does not cease
to be a victim inasmuch as it is only a victim of a dishonour
of cheque who can file a complaint. Thus, under Section 138
of the Act both the complainant as well as the victim are one
and the same person.
7.10 Section 378 of the CrPC is a specific provision dealing with
appeals. Sub-section (3) of Section 378 states that no appeal
to the High Court under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)
shall be entertained except with the leave of the Court, with
which we are not concerned in the instant case. However,
sub-section (4) of Section 378 is pertinent. It states that if
an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon a
complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by
the complainant in that behalf, grants special leave to appeal
from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such
an appeal to the High Court. The limitation period for seeking
special leave to appeal is six months where the complainant is
a public servant and sixty days in every other case, computed
from the date of the order of acquittal. Sub-Section (6) states
that if, in any case, the application under sub-section (4) for
grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal is
refused, no appeal from that order of acquittal shall lie under
sub-section (1) or under sub-section (2) of Section 378.
7.11 A reading of section 378 would clearly indicate that in case
the complainant intends to file an appeal against the order
of acquittal, his right is circumscribed by certain conditions
2646 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
precedent. When an appeal is to be preferred by a complainant,
the first question is, whether, the complainant is also the
victim or only an informant. 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. As noted
under sub-section (6), if the application under sub-section (4)
for grant of special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal
is refused, no appeal from that order of acquittal would lie,
inter alia, under sub-section (1) of Section 378. However, if
the complainant is also a victim, he could proceed under the
proviso to Section 372, in which case the rigour of sub-section
(4) of Section 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 right. Thus, if a victim who is
a complainant, proceeds under Section 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 Section 372, then the mandate of seeking special
leave to appeal would not arise.
7.12 The reasons for the above distinction are not far to see and
can be elaborated as follows:
Firstly, the victim of a crime must have an absolute right
to prefer an appeal which cannot be circumscribed
by any condition precedent. In the instant case, a
victim under Section 138 of the Act, i.e., a payee or
the holder of a cheque is a person who has suffered
the impact of the offence committed by a person
who is charged of the offence, namely, the accused,
whose cheque has been dishonoured.
Secondly, the right of a victim of a crime must be
placed on par with the right of an accused who has
suffered a conviction, who, as a matter of right can
prefer an appeal under Section 374 of the CrPC. A
person convicted of a crime has the right to prefer
an appeal under Section 374 as a matter of right
and not being subjected to any conditions. Similarly,
a victim of a crime, whatever be the nature of the
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2647
M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.
crime, unconditionally must have a right to prefer
an appeal.
Thirdly, it is for this reason that the Parliament thought
it fit to insert the proviso to sub-section 372 without
mandating any condition precedent to be fulfilled
by the victim of an offence, which expression also
includes the legal representatives of a deceased
victim who can prefer an appeal.
On the contrary, as against an order of acquittal,
the State, through the Public Prosecutor can prefer
an appeal even if the complainant does not prefer
such an appeal, though of course such an appeal is
with the leave of the court. However, it is not always
necessary for the State or a complainant to prefer
an appeal. But when it comes to a victim’s right to
prefer an appeal, the insistence on seeking special
leave to appeal from the High Court under Section
378(4) of the CrPC would be contrary to what has
been intended by the Parliament by insertion of the
proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC.
Fourthly, the Parliament has not amended Section
378 to circumscribe the victim’s right to prefer an
appeal just as it has with regard to a complainant
or the State filing an appeal. On the other hand, the
Parliament has inserted the proviso to Section 372
so as to envisage a superior right for the victim of an
offence to prefer an appeal on the grounds mentioned
therein as compared to a complainant.
Fifthly, the involvement of the State in respect of an
offence under Section 138 of the Act is conspicuous
by its absence. This is because the complaint filed
under that provision is in the nature of a private
complaint as per Section 200 of the CrPC and Section
143 of the Act by an express intention incorporates
the provisions of the CrPC in the matter of trial of
such a deemed offence tried as a criminal offence.
Therefore, the complainant, who is the victim of a
dishonour of cheque must be construed to be victim
2648 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
in terms of the proviso to Section 372 read with the
definition of victim under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC.
8. The right to prefer an appeal is no doubt a statutory right and the right
to prefer an appeal by an accused against a conviction is not merely
a statutory right but can also be construed to be a fundamental right
under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. If that is so, then the
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.
Hence, the statutory rigours for filing of an appeal by the State or
by a complainant against an order of acquittal cannot be read into
the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC so as to restrict the right of
a victim to file an appeal on the grounds mentioned therein, when
none exists.
9. In the circumstances, we find that Section 138 of the Act being in the
nature of a penal provision by a deeming fiction against an accused
who is said to have committed an offence under the said provision, if
acquitted, can be proceeded against by a victim of the said offence,
namely, the person who is entitled to the proceeds of a cheque which
has been dishonoured, in terms of the proviso to Section 372 of the
CrPC, as a victim. As already noted, a victim of an offence could
also be a complainant. In such a case, an appeal can be preferred
either under the proviso to Section 372 or under Section 378 by such
a victim. In the absence of the proviso to Section 372, a victim of
an offence could not have filed an appeal as such, unless he was
also a complainant, in which event he could maintain an appeal if
special leave to appeal had been granted by the High Court and
if no such special leave was granted then his appeal would not be
maintainable at all. On the other hand, if the victim of an offence,
who may or may not be the complainant, proceeds under the proviso
to Section 372 of the CrPC, then in our view, such a victim need not
seek special leave to appeal from the High Court. In other words,
the victim of an offence would have the right to prefer an appeal,
inter alia, against an order of acquittal in terms of the proviso to
Section 372 without seeking any special leave to appeal from the
High Court only on the grounds mentioned therein. A person who is
a complainant under Section 200 of the 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.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2649
M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.
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.
11. In the result, the impugned common order dated 12.06.2024 in Crl.
O.P. Nos.929, 931 and 1034 of 2024 in Crl. A. SR. Nos.1282, 1300
and 1321 of 2024 is set aside. Liberty is reserved to the appellant
herein to file the appeal(s) having regard to the proviso to Section 372
of the CrPC within four months from today.
12. Should the appeal(s) be filed within the period of four months from
today, the issue of limitation may not be raised by the respondents
herein or by the appellate court.
These appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Result of the case: Appeals allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Dishonour of cheque"Sign in to search