Charanjeet Singh v. State Of NCT Delhi & ORS.

$~10 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CHARANJEET SINGH .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Aryan Malik, Adv.

versus STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS.

.....Respondent Through:

Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 23.07.2025 CRL.M.A. 20461/2025 (for exemption) 1.

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.

The application stands disposed of.

CRL.L.P. 371/2025, CRL.M.A. 20459/2025 & CRL.M.A. 20460/2025 3.

The present leave to appeal is filed under Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS') against the judgement dated 03.04.2025, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, New Delhi district, Patiala House Courts, whereby Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act') in Complaint Case No. 27062/2016.

4.

At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320, the petitioner being a victim is entitled to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal and is not required to seek leave to appeal. He submits that the present petition be The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

transferred to the learned Court of Sessions to be treated as an appeal.

5.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent decision in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (supra) has opined that a complainant who prefers a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act is an aggrieved party who suffers economic loss due to the dishonour of cheque, and such a complainant qualifies as a victim within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC'). Consequently, it was held that such a complainant is entitled to the benefit of the proviso of Section 372 of the CrPC (corresponding to Section 413 of the BNSS), enabling them to maintain an appeal against an order of acquittal without seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the CrPC.

6.

The petitioner was the complainant in the complaint preferred under Section 138 of the NI Act, and is thus entitled to maintain an appeal under Section 413 of the BNSS. 7.

In terms of the proviso to Section 413 of the BNSS, an appeal by a victim against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate will have to be heard by the learned Court of Sessions. If the petition is allowed to continue before this Court, the parties will stand to lose a forum of challenge. 8.

In view of the above, the present matter is disposed of with direction that the present petition be treated as an appeal under the proviso to Section 413 of the BNSS and numbered accordingly.

9.

The Registry is directed to transfer entire record of the case to the concerned appellate Court of Sessions. 10.

The order be communicated to the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, New Delhi District, Patiala House The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Courts for compliance and listing before the concerned Appellate Court on 29.08.2025.

11.

The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Appellate Court on 29.08.2025.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J JULY 23, 2025 "SS"

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.