Janak Dulari v. Parmod Rana

CRA-AS-39-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

205-1 CRA-AS-39-2018 Date of Decision: 21.11.2025 JANAK DULARI .......Appellant

Versus

PARMOD RANA ......Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Ms. Anjali, Advocate for Ms. Kiran Jain, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Brijesh Mial, Advocate for the respondent.

*** ANOOP CHITKARA J.

Criminal Complaint No. 2665/2 Date of decision: 10.04.2012 1.

Feeling aggrieved by the trial court's judgment, dismissing the complaint on merits, and acqui1ng the accused/respondent, the complainant had come up before this Court by filing the above-men5oned appeal. 2.

Counsel for the appellant prays for transfer of appeal to the first Appellate Court in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in "Celes5um Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, decided on 08.04.2025". 3.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent endorses no objec5on to the prayer made by the applicant.

4.

In Celes5um Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 208, decided on 08.04.2025, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [7.8] In the case of an offence alleged against an accused under Sec5on 138 of the Act, we are of the view that the complainant is indeed the vic5m owing to the alleged dishonour of a cheque. In the circumstances, the complainant can proceed as per the proviso to Sec5on 372 of the CrPC and he may exercise such an op5on and he need not then elect to proceed under Sec5on 378 of the CrPC.

[8]. The right to prefer an appeal is no doubt a statutory right JYOTI 2025.11.21 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRA-AS-39-2018 and the right to prefer an appeal by an accused against a convic5on is not merely a statutory right but can also be construed to be a fundamental right under Ar5cles 14 and 21 of the Cons5tu5on. If that is so, then the right of a vic5m 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 acquial cannot be read into the proviso to Sec5on 372 of the CrPC so as to restrict the right of a vic5m to file an appeal on the grounds men5oned therein, when none exists.

[10]. As already noted, the proviso to Sec5on 372 of the CrPC was inserted in the statute book only with effect from 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such inser5on must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the vic5m of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Sec5on 372 of the CrPC, irrespec5ve of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the vic5m of an offence is a complainant, he can s5ll proceed under the proviso to Sec5on 372 and need not advert to sub-sec5on (4) of Sec5on 378 of the CrPC. 5.

In BNSS, 2023, S. 413 is analogous to S. 372 CrPC, 1973, and thus the ra5o of Celes5um Financial shall apply.

6.

However, the complainant should not face the burden of filing an appeal again before the Sessions Court because the law has been interpreted recently. Therefore, in the interest of Equity, Jus5ce, and Fair play, it would be appropriate to refer this maer to the Sessions Court, where it will be registered as an Appeal under the Proviso to S. 372 CrPC/413 BNSS, 2023, as applicable. If there is any objec5on regarding whether it is an appeal under the CrPC or BNSS, it shall be registered under the Proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023, because the CrPC, 1973, has been repealed. 7.

Given above, the Registry is to send this file along with the Lower Court's Record, if any, to the concerned Sessions Division.

8.

Appeal is disposed of in the terms men5oned above. All pending applica5on(s), if any, stand closed.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 21.11.2025 jyo-II Whether speaking/non-speaking:

Speaking Whether reportable:

No.

JYOTI 2025.11.21 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.