Rajinder Singh v. Sushil Kumar Jain
$~17 & 18 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.L.P. 535/2018 RAJINDER SINGH .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Rajesh Gulati, Adv.
versus SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN .....Respondent Through:
Mr. Vikas Bhatia, Adv.
(through VC) + CRL.L.P. 537/2018 RAJINDER SINGH .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Rajesh Gulati, Adv.
versus SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN .....Respondent Through:
Mr. Vikas Bhatia, Adv.
(through VC)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
O R D E R
% 13.08.2025 1.
The present leave to appeals are filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') against the judgment dated 04.06.2018, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM'), N.I. Act, West-03, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby the respondent was acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act') in CC No. 4378/16 and 3659/16 respectively.
2.
The learned counsel for the parties state that the parties would like to make endeavour for an amicable settlement. 3.
They request that the parties may be referred to the Delhi The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre ('DHCMCC'). 4.
Accordingly, the parties are directed to appear before the DHCMCC on 20.08.2025.
5.
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 appeals against the judgments of acquittal and is not required to seek leave to appeals. He submits that the present petitions be transferred to the learned Court of Sessions to be treated as appeals.
6.
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 CrPC. Consequently, it was held that such a complainant is entitled to the benefit of the proviso of Section 372 of the CrPC, enabling them to maintain an appeal against an order of acquittal without seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the CrPC. 7.
The petitioner was the complainant in the complaints preferred under Section 138 of the NI Act, and is thus entitled to maintain appeals under Section 372 of the CrPC. 8.
In terms of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, an appeal by a victim against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned MM will have to be heard by the learned Court of Sessions. If the petitions are allowed to continue before this The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
Court, the parties will stand to lose a forum of challenge. 9.
In view of the above, the present matters are disposed of with direction that the present petitions be treated as appeals under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC and numbered accordingly.
10.
The Registry is directed to transfer entire record of the cases, including the requisitioned copy of TCR, to the concerned appellate Court of Sessions.
11.
The order be communicated to the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi for compliance and listing before the concerned Appellate Court on 19.09.2025.
12.
The parties are directed to appear before the concerned Appellate Court on 19.09.2025.
13.
Considering that the matters have been pending before this Court since the year 2018, the learned Sessions Court is requested to dispose of the matters expeditiously. 14.
Report of DHCMCC be submitted before the concerned Sessions Court.
15.
A copy of this order be placed in both the matters. AMIT MAHAJAN, J AUGUST 13, 2025 'KDK'
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.