IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYAANA HIGH COURT ATT CHANDIGAARH 243 CCRM-A-1677-2024 DDate of Decision: 10.09.2026 ADESH KUMMAR … Appellant V/S MAHESH TAANWAR …Respondent CORAM: HHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SSHALINI SINGH NAGPAAL Present: MMr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate forr ffor the appellant. **** SHALINI SSINGH NAGPAL, J. (ORAAL) TThe victim/complainant seeks leeave to file appeal under Sectiion 378(4) Cr.P.C. against impugned order oof acquittal of learned Judiccial Magistrate Istt Class, Faridabad dated 16.10.2024 in complaint case captionned “Adesh kumaar Vs Mahesh Tanwar.” underr Sections 138/142 of Negotiabble Instruments AAct. BBefore proceeding further, it woould be apposite to refer to proviiso to Section 3722 Cr.P.C. (now Section 413 of BBhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhiita, 2023), which reads as under: 3372. No appeal to lie unless othherwise provided. -No appeal shall lie fromm any judgment or order off a CCriminal Court except as provideed for by this Code or by any othher llaw for the time being in force. JYOTI 2026.09.10 19:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-16777-2024 -2-- PProvided that the victim shall hhave a right to prefer an appeeal aagainst any order passed by thee Court acquitting the accused or cconvicting for a lesser offffence or imposing inadequaate ccompensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an aappeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of suuch CCourt. (Emphasis supplieed)

IIn M/s Celestium Financial Verrsus A. Gnanasekaran etc.; (20225) 3 RCR (Crimminal) 208, Hon’ble Supreme CCourt has interpreted Sections 372 and 378(4) off Cr.P.C. and has concluded thatt the victim in a private complaint case has a rigght to file an appeal under Sectioon 372 of Cr.P.C. against the ordder of acquittal bbefore the Court of Sessions. Reelevant portion of the judgmentt is reproduced ass under: ““………. But when it comes to a victim’s right to prefer an appeeal, tthe insistence on seeking speciaal leave to appeal from the Hiigh CCourt under section 378(4) of tthe Cr.P.C. would be contrary to wwhat has been intended by thee Parliament by insertion of thet pproviso to Section 372 of the Cr..P.C. Fourthly, the parliament hash nnot amended Section 378 to c ircumscribe the victim’s right to pprefer an appeal just as it has wwith regard to a complaint or thet SState filing an appeal. On the other hand, the Parliament hash i nserted the proviso to Section 372 so as to envisage a superiior rright for the victim of an offeence to prefer an appeal on thet ggrounds mentioned therein as co mpared to a complainant.” JYOTI 2026.09.10 19:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-16777-2024 -3--

OObservations of Hon’ble Suppreme Court in Directorate of Revenue Inteelligence Versus Raj Kumar AArora; 2025 SCC Online SC 8198 would also bee relevant and the same are reprooduced as under: ““92. ……. A judgment or decission which interprets a statute or pprovision thereof declares the mmeaning of the statute as it shouuld bbe construed from the date of iits enactment. In other words, thet j udgment declares what the legiislature had said at the time whhen tthe law was promulgated and th erefore, it has retrospective effeect. OOn the contrary, it is the statutee or the rule which is presumed to bbe prospective unless expressly made retrospective. What follows ffrom the same, is that a deciision or judgment enunciatingg a pprinciple of law is applicable to all cases irrespective of the staage oof pendency before different forums since what has beeen eenunciated is the meaning of the law which existed from thet i nception of the concerned statuee or provision.”

AAbovementioned judgments of HHon’ble Supreme Court have allso been followedd by Co-ordinate Benches of thiss Court in Mewa Devi Versus Paala and others; CRM-A-380-MA of 2017 annd Dharampal Versus State of Haryana andd others; CRM-A-489-MA off 2017, while relegating similar matters to thee Court of Sessions with a directtion to treat the same as an appeeal filed under Seection 372 Cr.P.C. and to decide the same in accordance with laww. LLearned counsel for the applicannt has not controverted the aboove position of laww. IIn view of the pronouncements aabove, the matter is relegated to thet Court of Sesssions, Faridabad. Learned Sessioons Judge, Faridabad shall treat thet JYOTI 2026.09.10 19:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-16777-2024 -4-- instant leave to appeal as an appeal filed unnder Section 372 Cr.P.C. and maym entrust the samme to himself/herself or assign itt to some other Court of competeent jurisdiction foor its disposal on merits, in accorrdance with law. LLearned counsel for applicant shhall inform the applicant to appeear before learnedd Sessions Judge, Faridabad wiithin a period of 15 days either in person or throough counsel. LLet entire paper book and recordd appended thereto be transmittted to learned Sesssions Judge, Faridabad forthwithh. DDisposed of accordingly. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) 10.09.2026 JJUDGE Jyoti-V Whether speaking/reasonedd : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No JYOTI 2026.09.10 19:39

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYAANA HIGH COURT ATT CHANDIGAARH 243 CCRM-A-1677-2024 DDate of Decision: 10.09.2026 ADESH KUMMAR … Appellant V/S MAHESH TAANWAR …Respondent CORAM: HHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SSHALINI SINGH NAGPAAL Present: MMr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate forr ffor the appellant. **** SHALINI SSINGH NAGPAL, J. (ORAAL) TThe victim/complainant seeks leeave to file appeal under Sectiion 378(4) Cr.P.C. against impugned order oof acquittal of learned Judiccial Magistrate Istt Class, Faridabad dated 16.10.2024 in complaint case captionned “Adesh kumaar Vs Mahesh Tanwar.” underr Sections 138/142 of Negotiabble Instruments AAct. BBefore proceeding further, it woould be apposite to refer to proviiso to Section 3722 Cr.P.C. (now Section 413 of BBhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhiita, 2023), which reads as under: 3372. No appeal to lie unless othherwise provided. -No appeal shall lie fromm any judgment or order off a CCriminal Court except as provideed for by this Code or by any othher llaw for the time being in force. JYOTI 2026.09.10 19:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-16777-2024 -2-- PProvided that the victim shall hhave a right to prefer an appeeal aagainst any order passed by thee Court acquitting the accused or cconvicting for a lesser offffence or imposing inadequaate ccompensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an aappeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of suuch CCourt. (Emphasis supplieed)

IIn M/s Celestium Financial Verrsus A. Gnanasekaran etc.; (20225) 3 RCR (Crimminal) 208, Hon’ble Supreme CCourt has interpreted Sections 372 and 378(4) off Cr.P.C. and has concluded thatt the victim in a private complaint case has a rigght to file an appeal under Sectioon 372 of Cr.P.C. against the ordder of acquittal bbefore the Court of Sessions. Reelevant portion of the judgmentt is reproduced ass under: ““………. But when it comes to a victim’s right to prefer an appeeal, tthe insistence on seeking speciaal leave to appeal from the Hiigh CCourt under section 378(4) of tthe Cr.P.C. would be contrary to wwhat has been intended by thee Parliament by insertion of thet pproviso to Section 372 of the Cr..P.C. Fourthly, the parliament hash nnot amended Section 378 to c ircumscribe the victim’s right to pprefer an appeal just as it has wwith regard to a complaint or thet SState filing an appeal. On the other hand, the Parliament hash i nserted the proviso to Section 372 so as to envisage a superiior rright for the victim of an offeence to prefer an appeal on thet ggrounds mentioned therein as co mpared to a complainant.” JYOTI 2026.09.10 19:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-16777-2024 -3--

OObservations of Hon’ble Suppreme Court in Directorate of Revenue Inteelligence Versus Raj Kumar AArora; 2025 SCC Online SC 8198 would also bee relevant and the same are reprooduced as under: ““92. ……. A judgment or decission which interprets a statute or pprovision thereof declares the mmeaning of the statute as it shouuld bbe construed from the date of iits enactment. In other words, thet j udgment declares what the legiislature had said at the time whhen tthe law was promulgated and th erefore, it has retrospective effeect. OOn the contrary, it is the statutee or the rule which is presumed to bbe prospective unless expressly made retrospective. What follows ffrom the same, is that a deciision or judgment enunciatingg a pprinciple of law is applicable to all cases irrespective of the staage oof pendency before different forums since what has beeen eenunciated is the meaning of the law which existed from thet i nception of the concerned statuee or provision.”

AAbovementioned judgments of HHon’ble Supreme Court have allso been followedd by Co-ordinate Benches of thiss Court in Mewa Devi Versus Paala and others; CRM-A-380-MA of 2017 annd Dharampal Versus State of Haryana andd others; CRM-A-489-MA off 2017, while relegating similar matters to thee Court of Sessions with a directtion to treat the same as an appeeal filed under Seection 372 Cr.P.C. and to decide the same in accordance with laww. LLearned counsel for the applicannt has not controverted the aboove position of laww. IIn view of the pronouncements aabove, the matter is relegated to thet Court of Sesssions, Faridabad. Learned Sessioons Judge, Faridabad shall treat thet JYOTI 2026.09.10 19:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-A-16777-2024 -4-- instant leave to appeal as an appeal filed unnder Section 372 Cr.P.C. and maym entrust the samme to himself/herself or assign itt to some other Court of competeent jurisdiction foor its disposal on merits, in accorrdance with law. LLearned counsel for applicant shhall inform the applicant to appeear before learnedd Sessions Judge, Faridabad wiithin a period of 15 days either in person or throough counsel. LLet entire paper book and recordd appended thereto be transmittted to learned Sesssions Judge, Faridabad forthwithh. DDisposed of accordingly. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) 10.09.2026 JJUDGE Jyoti-V Whether speaking/reasonedd : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No JYOTI 2026.09.10 19:39

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document