Latest JudgementBharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

M/s Celestium Financial v. A Gnanasekaran, 2025

The Right of a victim to appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without seeking special leave.

Supreme Court of India·7 June 2025
M/s Celestium Financial v. A Gnanasekaran, 2025
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023
Share:

Judgement Details

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

7 June 2025

Judges

Justice B.V. Nagarathna ⦁ Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

  • The complainant, M/s Celestium Financial, had filed a case under Section 138 of the NI Act due to the dishonour of a cheque.

  • The accused was acquitted by the trial court.

  • The complainant sought to appeal the acquittal.

  • The legal question arose as to whether the complainant, being a “victim”, could file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without seeking special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC.

Issues

  1. Whether a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case qualifies as a “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC?

  2. Whether such a victim has an unconditional right to file an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC?

  3. Whether the victim/complainant is required to seek leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC?

Held

  • The Court conclusively held that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC grants a direct, unconditional right to the victim to file an appeal against acquittal, regardless of whether they are the complainant.

  • This right is independent and superior to the general appeal process under Section 378.

Analysis

  • The definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC is interpreted broadly, encompassing anyone who has suffered harm or injury due to the crime, including cheque dishonour cases.

  • The proviso to Section 372 CrPC, inserted in 2009, was intended to empower victims and remove procedural hurdles in accessing justice.

  • Unlike Section 378(4) which requires leave of the court for appeals against acquittals by complainants, the proviso creates a separate pathway for victims, free from such conditions.

  • The Parliament deliberately chose not to amend Section 378 to cover victims under the same umbrella as complainants, thereby indicating a legislative intent to provide greater rights to victims.

  • In cases under Section 138 NI Act, which are private complaints, the State’s involvement is minimal. Hence, the victim-complainant is central to seeking redress and must be given direct appellate rights.

  • The Court aligned the victim’s right to appeal with the accused’s right to appeal under Section 374 CrPC, establishing equality in appellate rights.