Supreme Court Doubts Judgment Allowing Cheque Case Complainant To File Appeal As 'Victim' u/s 372 CrPC; Refers To Larger Bench
The Supreme Court referred to a larger Bench the question whether a complainant in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can file an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure[ Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita] without obtaining special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC.A Bench of...
The Supreme Court referred to a larger Bench the question whether a complainant in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can file an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure[ Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita] without obtaining special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by M/s Everest Automobiles against M/s Rajit Enterprises, challenging a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated April 10, 2024.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner relied on the recent decision in Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804), where a co-ordinate Bench held that a complainant in a Section 138 case is a “victim” and is therefore entitled to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The Court in that case further held that such an appeal against acquittal could be filed without seeking special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC.
However, the present Bench noted that the judgment in Celestium Financial did not take into account earlier binding precedents in Satya Pal Singh vs. State of M.P 2015 15 SCC 613 and Subhash Chand vs. State (Delhi Administration) (2013) 1 SCC 802, which had taken a contrary view on the scope of a complainant's appellate remedy.
The Bench also expressed its inability to agree with the interpretation placed by the co-ordinate Bench on the scheme of the Code in the context of Sections 372 and 378 CrPC. It observed that a reading of Section 378(1), (2) and (3) indicates that the proviso to Section 372 was carved out keeping in mind the distinction between the prosecuting agency and the victim.
Importantly, the Court pointed out that Sections 378(4) and (5) were consciously retained in the Code, making it incumbent upon a complainant who initiated prosecution on a complaint that resulted in acquittal to obtain leave before filing an appeal before the High Court.
Holding that the issue has “far-reaching consequences”, the Bench observed that it is desirable that a larger Bench authoritatively pronounce on the question. The matter has been directed to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions regarding constitution of a larger Bench.
Case : M/s Everest Automobiles v. M/s Rajit Enterprises
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 155