Dev Raj v. M/S Ram Ditta Mal Samey Singh
CRM-A-97-MA-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.138 CRM-A-97-MA-2014 Date of Decision: 28.08.2025 DEV RAJ ....Appellant
Versus
M/S RAM DITTA MAL SAMEY SINGH .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present:- Ms. Vamika Johar, Advocate for Mr. Pritam Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Shikha Yadav, Advocate and Mr. Bharat Pilania, Advocate for respondent.
***** SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (Oral) The present application has been preferred under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. seeking grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 12.12.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kurukshetra in a complaint case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter 'NI Act'). 2.
Against the judgment of acquittal the appellant-complainant filed Criminal Appeal No.100087 of 2013 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra which was decided/dismissed on 02.12.2013 observing therein that complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 against the judgment of acquittal is not maintainable in this Court and in fact the same is maintainable before the Hon'ble High Court in terms of Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. MAHIMA 2025.09.03 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-A-97-MA-2014 3.
However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208, after considerable discussion and comparative interpretation of Sections 372 and 378(4) of Cr.P.C., concluded that the victim has a right to file an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions. Reliance in this regard can also be placed on Satish Kumar Versus Jugal Kishor in CRMA-2700-MA-2018 decided on 02.07.2025. Further still, applying the doctrine of prospective overruling, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Raj Kumar Arora in SCC Online 819 has clarified that as a rule of thumb, judgments rendered shall be applicable retrospectively. 4.
Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Celestium Financial (supra), the present application seeking leave to appeal is remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge concerned with a direction to treat the same as filed under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and to dispose of by himself or entrust it to appropriate Court for its disposal. 5.
The Registry is directed to send the complete paper-book and the record of the case to the learned Sessions Judge, concerned forthwith. 6.
Disposed of accordingly. (SUBHAS MEHLA) 28.08.2025 JUDGE mahima Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No MAHIMA 2025.09.03 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh