Delhi High Court | Cheque Dishonour Complainant Treated as ‘Victim’ Under Section 413 BNSS | Appeal Against Acquittal To Be Filed Before Sessions Court Without Special Leave
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri directed that an appeal arising from a dishonour of cheque case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act be transferred to the Sessions Court for consideration under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, now Section 413 BNSS. The matter concerned a complainant challenging the acquittal of the respondent. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, the Court held that complainants in cheque dishonour cases qualify as “victims,” entitled to appeal directly before the Sessions Court without obtaining special leave.
The case arose from a petition filed by Oasis Tours India Pvt. Ltd. under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner, being the complainant in the original proceedings, sought leave to appeal against the judgment dated 15.05.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, NI Act, RACC, wherein the respondent, Jagdamba Tour Trek Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Shri Nishant Arora, was acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The dispute stemmed from dishonour of cheques issued by the respondent, leading the complainant company to institute proceedings under Section 138 NI Act. The trial court acquitted the respondent, finding no offence proved. Aggrieved by this outcome, the complainant invoked Section 378(4) CrPC before the Delhi High Court, seeking leave to file an appeal against the acquittal.
The petition came up before Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, where the petitioner’s counsel relied upon the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320). The said decision held that a complainant in cheque dishonour cases qualifies as a “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC and may maintain an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC in their own right.
The statutory provisions invoked in this case included Section 138 of the NI Act relating to dishonour of cheque, Section 378(4) CrPC concerning appeals against acquittal by a complainant, Section 2(wa) CrPC defining “victim,” and the proviso to Section 372 CrPC (now Section 413 BNSS) which grants victims the right to appeal against orders of acquittal.
The Court recorded that “normally, a complainant who seeks to challenge a judgement of acquittal has to meet the rigours of Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.” It stated that “the aggrieved complainant has to apply before the High Court for a special leave to appeal. If the High Court grants it, the complainant can present such appeal before the High Court.”
However, the Court observed that “if the complainant under the NI Act is also held to be a ‘victim’, then all the rights available to the victim by the Code would also be extended to such complainant, including a separate right to appeal provided under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.”
Quoting the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial, the Court noted: “In the context of offences under the Act, particularly under Section 138 of the said Act, the complainant is clearly the aggrieved party who has suffered economic loss and injury due to the default in payment by the accused owing to the dishonour of the cheque… Consequently, such a complainant ought to be extended the benefit of the proviso to Section 372, thereby enabling him to maintain an appeal against an order of acquittal in his own right without having to seek special leave under Section 378(4) of the CrPC.”
The Court further stated: “Effect of the proviso of Section 372 CrPC is twofold. Firstly, it provides the victim an individual right to appeal against an order of acquittal which is distinct from the right provided to the complainant under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. Secondly, it provides an additional forum of challenge… an appeal against conviction, and thus an appeal preferred by the victim, would lie before the Sessions Court.”
The Court also recorded that “in light of the Supreme Court's recent clarification of the legal position, it is now evident that the petitioner, being the complainant under Section 138 of NI Act, is also entitled to file an appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal before the Sessions Court, since he is considered to be a victim.”
The Court directed that “the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the direction that the accompanying appeal be transferred to the concerned Appellate Court of Sessions and be considered as an appeal under the proviso to Section 413 of BNSS (formerly Section 372 of CrPC) and numbered accordingly.”
“The Registry is directed to transfer entire record of the case including the requisitioned copies of TCR, to the concerned Principal District & Sessions Judge, who may assign it to the concerned Appellate Court/ learned ASJ having the jurisdiction and for which purpose, it would be listed before the concerned Principal District & Sessions Judge, at the first instance, 03.11.2025 for directions.”
“In case there are applications pending for Condonation of Delay, the same be also transferred to be considered by the learned ASJ in accordance with law. The earlier date fixed, if any, before this Court stands cancelled.”
“This Court has not made any observations as to the merits of the case and all rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be agitated before the Court concerned.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Atul Rastogi, Advocate
Case Title: Oasis Tours India Pvt. Ltd. v. Jagdamba Tour Trek Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Shri Nishant Arora
Case Number: CRL.L.P. 405/2023
Bench: Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri
