% 10.11.2025

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. by the appellant/complainant against the judgement dated 03.11.2016 passed by learned JMFC, NI Act, Saket Courts in the case bearing CC No. 622106/16 titled as 'RAJESH SAHANI v. M/S. KANGRA SECURITY GROUPS' vide which the respondents were acquitted of the offense under Section 138 NI Act. The appellant had approached this Court vide CRL.L.P.No. 89/2017 seeking leave to appeal and the same was granted by this Court vide order dated 18.09.2018, following which the appeals were duly admitted.

2. The appellant is the complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act who is aggrieved by the dishonour of the cheques statedly issued by the respondent. The trial which was initiated on the basis of his complaint has culminated in a finding of acquittal for respondent vide the impugned judgement. Naturally, the appellant is aggrieved by the said decision and wants to challenge the same.

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/11/2025 at 21:00:04

3. During the course of proceedings, the attention of this Court is drawn to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial vs A. Gnanasekaran etc, reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320 wherein, it has been held that the complainant under Section 138 NI Act, who suffers financial loss and injury on account of the dishonour of cheque, would qualify as a victim within the meaning of Section 2 (wa) Cr.P.C. It was further held that such a complainant could maintain an appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC in his own right, without complying with the rigours of Section 378(4) CrPC. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-

4. To discuss the implications of the aforesaid decision, it would be prudent to first analyse the statutory matrix. Chapter XXIX of the Cr.P.C . contains the provisions governing appeals. Section 372 lays down, in unequivocal terms, that appeals can only be filed in accordance with the CrPC or any other law in force. Section 374 deals with appeals from conviction, which we are not concerned with presently. Section 378 lays down the procedure to be followed in cases of appeals from acquittals. Sub- section (4) of the said provision in particular, deals with appeals from acquittals in cases which were instituted on complaints, such as those under Section 138 of the NI Act. In such a case, 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. Section 378 (5) provides for the period of limitation for filing such application for leave to appeal, and Section 378 (6) states that if the High Court refuses the special leave to appeal, no appeal would lie from that order of acquittal under Section 378(1) or (2).

5. A careful reading of the above provisions would show that the right of the complainant to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal is circumscribed by certain conditions precedent. However, if the complainant under the NI Act is also held to be a 'victim', then all the rights available to This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/11/2025 at 21:00:04 the victim by the Code would also be extended to such complainant, including a separate right to appeal. Before discussing the possible consequences of the above finding, it would be pertinent to understand how the Code defines and provides for the victim.

6. Section 2 (wa) of Cr.P.C. defines victim in the following fashion:-

A careful reading of the above proviso would show that the victim can appeal from three types of orders : a) an order of acquittal, b) a conviction for a lesser offence or c) imposing inadequate compensation. It also states that such appeal shall lie to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such court. Section 372 is a self-contained and independent provision which is not to be read conjointly with any other provision, including Section 378 Cr.P.C. It applies to acquittals from both This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/11/2025 at 21:00:04 Trial Court and Appellate Court and the appeal would lie in the first hierarchical superior court. (Ref: Asian Paints limited v. Ram Babu &Anr1, Mahabir v. State of Haryana2 )

7. Introduction of this proviso does, in effect, two things. One, 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 as in this case, no special leave to appeal needs to be obtained from the High Court. Secondly, there is a difference in the forum to which appeals can be preferred. While under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C, after granting special leave to appeal, the High Court would hear the appeal. However, in case of an appeal preferred by the victim under Section 372 CrPC, the same lies before the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court. Section 143 of the NI Act states that all offences under Chapter XVII of the Act , including an offence under Section 138 shall be tried by a Judicial Magistrate of First Class or by a Metropolitan Magistrate. An appeal against conviction, and thus an appeal preferred by the victim, would lie before the Sessions Court.

8. There are a number of reasons for this difference in the mechanism for a victim and a complainant. Rights of a victim are placed on par with the rights of the accused who suffers a conviction and as a matter of right can prefer an appeal under Section 374 of the CrPC, without being subject to any conditions. The victim's right to prefer an appeal is also absolute, as is reflected from the language of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. It is also worth noting that the parliament has not amended Section 378 CrPC to 1 SLP (Crl.) No.(s) 9888/2024, decided on 14.07.2025 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 184 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/11/2025 at 21:00:04 circumscribe the victim's appeal with the similar limitations as that of the complainant.

9. In light of the Supreme Court's recent clarification of the legal position, it is now evident that the appellant, 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. If this Court were to proceed to hear and decide the appeal at this stage, it could deprive the parties of an available forum i.e., this Court, for further challenge.

10. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Vijender Singh v. Mahender Pal @ Bindu3while placing reliance on Celestium Financial(Supra), had relegated the parties to the Sessions Court. The differences in the remedies available under Section 378(4) and proviso to Section 372 CrPC were also discussed. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-

11. Other benches of this Court in Krishan Lal v. Wasim Khan4 and Girish Rehani v. M/s Keltech Infrastructure Ltd. &Ors.5 in cases where the leave to appeal under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. had already been granted, keeping in view the import of the decision in Celestium Financial(Supra), transferred the appeal to the Court of Sessions.

12. Similar view has been taken by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Charbel India v. State of Andhra Pradesh6, High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Manorama Kankane v. Narendra Kumar Shukla7, Late Kisan Sewa Kendra v. Pritam Singh8, Smt. UrmitMadrah v. Samarpan Jain9 , High Court of Chattisgarh in Neelam Sahu v. NaradNagwanshi10 and Smt. Kirti Kurian v. Ajay Singh11; and Karnataka High Court in Sidagondappa v. ShafiAhammad12and Sri TH Lenkappa v. Sri Sanjay &Anr.13 4 Decided on 28.07.2025 in CRL.A. 783/2018 5 decided on 11.08.2025 in Crl.A 337/2025 6 2025SCC OnLine AP 2815 7 2025SCC OnLine MP 4779 8 2025SCC OnLine MP 4818 9 decided on 21.07.2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 11872 of 2022 10 decided on 16.07.2025 in ACQA No. 340 of 2018 11 decided on 16.07.2025 in ACQA No. 198 of 2019 12 decided on 31.07.2025 in CRL.A. No. 20021/2018 13 decided on 23.07.2025 in CRL.A. No. 146/2015 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/11/2025 at 21:00:04

13. An overall assessment of the Catena of decisions discussed hereinabove reveals that the Celestium Financial(Supra) has been relied upon by this Court as well other High Courts across the country, to relegate the parties back to the Sessions Court with directions to the Court to consider these appeals filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C as if they had been filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C. This Court feels no reason to take a contrary view in the present case.

14. Despite issuance of notice, none appeared on behalf of the appellant.

15. Considering the above, it is deemed fit to direct that the present 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.

16. 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, on 02.12.2025 for directions.

17. 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.

18. Considering that the matter has been pending for considerable time, learned Appellate Court is requested to make an endeavour to dispose the matter as expeditiously as possible.

19. It is made clear that 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 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/11/2025 at 21:00:04 be agitated before the Court concerned.

20. A copy of the order be sent to the concerned Principal District and Sessions Judge for necessary information and compliance.

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J NOVEMBER 10, 2025 ga This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/11/2025 at 21:00:04 $~68 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 989/2018 RAJESH SAHANI .....Appellant Through: None.

versus M/S. KANGRA SECURITY GROUPS & ANR......Respondents Through: None.

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/11/2025 at 21:00:04

3. During the course of proceedings, the attention of this Court is drawn to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial vs A. Gnanasekaran etc, reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320 wherein, it has been held that the complainant under Section 138 NI Act, who suffers financial loss and injury on account of the dishonour of cheque, would qualify as a victim within the meaning of Section 2 (wa) Cr.P.C. It was further held that such a complainant could maintain an appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC in his own right, without complying with the rigours of Section 378(4) CrPC. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-

4. To discuss the implications of the aforesaid decision, it would be prudent to first analyse the statutory matrix. Chapter XXIX of the Cr.P.C . contains the provisions governing appeals. Section 372 lays down, in unequivocal terms, that appeals can only be filed in accordance with the CrPC or any other law in force. Section 374 deals with appeals from conviction, which we are not concerned with presently. Section 378 lays down the procedure to be followed in cases of appeals from acquittals. Sub- section (4) of the said provision in particular, deals with appeals from acquittals in cases which were instituted on complaints, such as those under Section 138 of the NI Act. In such a case, 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. Section 378 (5) provides for the period of limitation for filing such application for leave to appeal, and Section 378 (6) states that if the High Court refuses the special leave to appeal, no appeal would lie from that order of acquittal under Section 378(1) or (2).

5. A careful reading of the above provisions would show that the right of the complainant to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal is circumscribed by certain conditions precedent. However, if the complainant under the NI Act is also held to be a 'victim', then all the rights available to This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/11/2025 at 21:00:04 the victim by the Code would also be extended to such complainant, including a separate right to appeal. Before discussing the possible consequences of the above finding, it would be pertinent to understand how the Code defines and provides for the victim.

6. Section 2 (wa) of Cr.P.C. defines victim in the following fashion:-

A careful reading of the above proviso would show that the victim can appeal from three types of orders : a) an order of acquittal, b) a conviction for a lesser offence or c) imposing inadequate compensation. It also states that such appeal shall lie to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such court. Section 372 is a self-contained and independent provision which is not to be read conjointly with any other provision, including Section 378 Cr.P.C. It applies to acquittals from both This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/11/2025 at 21:00:04 Trial Court and Appellate Court and the appeal would lie in the first hierarchical superior court. (Ref: Asian Paints limited v. Ram Babu &Anr14, Mahabir v. State of Haryana15 )

7. Introduction of this proviso does, in effect, two things. One, 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 as in this case, no special leave to appeal needs to be obtained from the High Court. Secondly, there is a difference in the forum to which appeals can be preferred. While under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C, after granting special leave to appeal, the High Court would hear the appeal. However, in case of an appeal preferred by the victim under Section 372 CrPC, the same lies before the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court. Section 143 of the NI Act states that all offences under Chapter XVII of the Act , including an offence under Section 138 shall be tried by a Judicial Magistrate of First Class or by a Metropolitan Magistrate. An appeal against conviction, and thus an appeal preferred by the victim, would lie before the Sessions Court.

8. There are a number of reasons for this difference in the mechanism for a victim and a complainant. Rights of a victim are placed on par with the rights of the accused who suffers a conviction and as a matter of right can prefer an appeal under Section 374 of the CrPC, without being subject to any conditions. The victim's right to prefer an appeal is also absolute, as is reflected from the language of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. It is also worth noting that the parliament has not amended Section 378 CrPC to 14 SLP (Crl.) No.(s) 9888/2024, decided on 14.07.2025 15 2025 SCC OnLine SC 184 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/11/2025 at 21:00:04 circumscribe the victim's appeal with the similar limitations as that of the complainant.

9. In light of the Supreme Court's recent clarification of the legal position, it is now evident that the appellant, 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. If this Court were to proceed to hear and decide the appeal at this stage, it could deprive the parties of an available forum i.e., this Court, for further challenge.

10. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Vijender Singh v. Mahender Pal @ Bindu16while placing reliance on Celestium Financial(Supra), had relegated the parties to the Sessions Court. The differences in the remedies available under Section 378(4) and proviso to Section 372 CrPC were also discussed. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-

11. Other benches of this Court in Krishan Lal v. Wasim Khan17 and Girish Rehani v. M/s Keltech Infrastructure Ltd. &Ors.18 in cases where the leave to appeal under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. had already been granted, keeping in view the import of the decision in Celestium Financial(Supra), transferred the appeal to the Court of Sessions.

12. Similar view has been taken by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Charbel India v. State of Andhra Pradesh19, High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Manorama Kankane v. Narendra Kumar Shukla20, Late Kisan Sewa Kendra v. Pritam Singh21, Smt. UrmitMadrah v. Samarpan Jain22 , High Court of Chattisgarh in Neelam Sahu v. NaradNagwanshi23 and Smt. Kirti Kurian v. Ajay Singh24; and Karnataka High Court in Sidagondappa v. ShafiAhammad25and Sri TH Lenkappa v. Sri Sanjay &Anr.26 17 Decided on 28.07.2025 in CRL.A. 783/2018 18 decided on 11.08.2025 in Crl.A 337/2025 19 2025SCC OnLine AP 2815 20 2025SCC OnLine MP 4779 21 2025SCC OnLine MP 4818 22 decided on 21.07.2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 11872 of 2022 23 decided on 16.07.2025 in ACQA No. 340 of 2018 24 decided on 16.07.2025 in ACQA No. 198 of 2019 25 decided on 31.07.2025 in CRL.A. No. 20021/2018 26 decided on 23.07.2025 in CRL.A. No. 146/2015 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/11/2025 at 21:00:04

13. An overall assessment of the Catena of decisions discussed hereinabove reveals that the Celestium Financial(Supra) has been relied upon by this Court as well other High Courts across the country, to relegate the parties back to the Sessions Court with directions to the Court to consider these appeals filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C as if they had been filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C. This Court feels no reason to take a contrary view in the present case.

14. Despite issuance of notice, none appeared on behalf of the appellant.

15. Considering the above, it is deemed fit to direct that the present 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.

16. 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, on 02.12.2025 for directions.

17. 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.

18. Considering that the matter has been pending for considerable time, learned Appellate Court is requested to make an endeavour to dispose the matter as expeditiously as possible.

19. It is made clear that 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 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/11/2025 at 21:00:04 be agitated before the Court concerned.

20. A copy of the order be sent to the concerned Principal District and Sessions Judge for necessary information and compliance.

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J NOVEMBER 10, 2025 ga This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/11/2025 at 21:00:04 $~69 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 230/2023 SHRI SAJJAN SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Komal Sorout, Advocate.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/complainant seeking leave to appeal against the judgement dated 23.03.2023 passed by learned JMFC, NI Act, Dwarka Courts in the case bearing CC No. 7676-2020 titled as 'SHRI SAJJAN SINGH v. SHRI RABINDRA KUMAR', vide which the respondent was acquitted of the offense under Section 138 NI Act.

2. The attention of this Court is drawn to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial vs A. Gnanasekaran etc, reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320 wherein, it has been held that the complainant under Section 138 NI Act, who suffers financial loss and injury on account of the dishonour of cheque, would qualify as a victim within the meaning of Section 2 (wa) Cr.P.C.

It was further held that such a complainant could maintain an appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC in his own right, without complying with This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/11/2025 at 21:00:04 the rigours of Section 378(4) CrPC. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-

3. Normally, a complainant who seeks to challenge a judgement of This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/11/2025 at 21:00:04 acquittal has to meet the rigours of Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. 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.

4. However, 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. The proviso reads as follows:-

A careful reading of the above proviso would show that the victim can appeal from three types of orders- a) an order of acquittal, b) a conviction for a lesser offence or c) imposing inadequate compensation. It also states that such appeal shall lie to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such court. Section 372 is a self-contained and independent provision which is not to be read conjointly with any other provision, including Section 378 Cr.P.C.

5. 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 as in this case, no special leave to appeal needs to be obtained from the High Court. Secondly, it provides an additional forum of challenge as in case of an appeal preferred by the victim under Section 372 CrPC, the This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/11/2025 at 21:00:04 same lies before the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court. Section 143 of the NI Act states that all offences under Chapter XVII of the Act , including an offence under Section 138 shall be tried by a Judicial Magistrate of First Class or by a Metropolitan Magistrate. An appeal against conviction, and thus an appeal preferred by the victim, would lie before the Sessions Court.

6. 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. If this Court were to proceed to hear and decide the appeal at this stage, it could deprive the parties of an available forum i.e., this Court, for further challenge.

7. Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Yogesh Kataria v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) &Anr27 , Abdul Malik v State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) &Anr28 , Promila Lekhi v. Safe Hands Chits Pvt. Ltd. &Anr29, Shri Ujjawal Arora v. State and Ors30, taking note of the decision in Celestium Financial(Supra), have allowed the withdrawal of leave petitions filed before this Court with liberty to the petitioners/complainants to approach the concerned Sessions Court.

8. Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Gunjan w/o Alok Khandelwal v. Parvaiz Hussain31, Dnyaneshwar Dinkar Badve v. The State 27 decided on 16.07.2025 in CRL.LP. 367/2025 28 decided on 22.07.2025 in CRL.LP. 378/2025 29 decided on 14.07.2025 in CRL.LP. 360/2025 30 decided on 15.07.2025 in CRL.LP./2025 31 decided on 21.07.2025 in Criminal Application (APPA) No. 150/2023 in Criminal Appeal ST. No. 10465/2022 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/11/2025 at 21:00:04 of Maharashtra &Anr32, the High Court of Karnataka in Sidagondappa vs Shafi Ahammad33, Sri T H Lenkappa vs Sri Sanjay34, High Court of Chattisgarh in Nemnath Yogi vs. Yashwant Chandravanshi35 , Neelam Sahu v. Narad Nagwanshi36 , and Smt. Kirti Kurian v. Ajay Singh; the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Urmila Madrah v. Samarpan Jain37and the High Court of Gujarat in Baroda Cricket Association v. State of Gujarat &Anr38 , Gauhati High Court in Bhargab Kaushik v. Dilip Kumar Bhagabati39, Allahabad High Court in Indian Farm Forestry Development Cooperative Ltd v. Mangala Trading Company40and Himachal Pradesh High Court in Roshan Chauhan vs . Mohan Lal41 have also relied on Celestium Financial (Supra) to relegate the parties to contest their case before the Sessions Court.

9. In view of the above, learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw this petition, with liberty to approach the concerned Sessions Court.

10. Considering the above noted legal position, 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.

decided on 24.07.2025 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 793/2025 33 decided on 31.07.2025 in CRL.A No. 200021 of 2018 34 decided on 23.07.2025 in CRL.A No. 146 OF 2015 35 decided on 07.08.2025 in CRMP No. 579 of 2021 36 decided on 16.07.2025 in ACQA No. 340 of 2018 37 decided on 21.07.2025 in CRL.A. No. 11872 of 2022 38 decided on 17.06.2025 in R/CR.MA/3473/2025 39 decided on 04.08.2025 in Crl.L.P./34/2025 40 decided on 28.07.2025 in APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 56 of 2025 41 decided on 21.07.2025 in Cr. MP(M) No. 1629 of 2025 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/11/2025 at 21:00:04

11. 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, on 02.12.2025 for directions.

12. 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.

13. Considering that the matter has been pending for considerable time, learned Appellate Court is requested to make an endeavour to dispose the matter as expeditiously as possible.

14. The earlier date fixed, if any, before this Court stands cancelled.

15. It is made clear that 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.

16. A copy of the order be sent to the concerned Principal District and Sessions Judge for necessary information and compliance.

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J NOVEMBER 10, 2025 ga This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/11/2025 at 21:00:04 $~58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 216/2023 MS. JYOTI DABRAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dhan Mohan Mishra, Advocate.

1. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the challenge in the present appeal arises out of the proceedings initiated under Section 138 NI Act wherein the complaint of the appellant was dismissed in default on 23.04.2022 by the ld. JMFC, KKD Court, Delhi against which order of revision was preferred before the Ld. Sessions Court. The said challenge was dismissed on 07.03.2023 holding that the remedy under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. was available to the appellant.

2. The attention of this Court is drawn to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial vs A. Gnanasekaran etc, reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320 wherein, it has been held that the complainant under Section 138 NI Act, who suffers financial loss and injury on account of the dishonour of cheque, would qualify as a victim within the meaning of Section 2 (wa) Cr.P.C.

It was further held that such a complainant could maintain an appeal This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/11/2025 at 21:00:04 under proviso to Section 372 CrPC in his own right, without complying with the rigours of Section 378(4) CrPC. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/11/2025 at 21:00:04

3. Normally, a complainant who seeks to challenge a judgement of acquittal has to meet the rigours of Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. 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.

4. However, 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. The proviso reads as follows:-

A careful reading of the above proviso would show that the victim can appeal from three types of orders- a) an order of acquittal, b) a conviction for a lesser offence or c) imposing inadequate compensation. It also states that such appeal shall lie to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such court. Section 372 is a self-contained and independent provision which is not to be read conjointly with any other provision, including Section 378 Cr.P.C.

5. 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 as in this case, no special leave to appeal needs to be obtained from the High Court. Secondly, it provides an additional forum of challenge This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/11/2025 at 21:00:04 as in case of an appeal preferred by the victim under Section 372 CrPC, the same lies before the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court. Section 143 of the NI Act states that all offences under Chapter XVII of the Act , including an offence under Section 138 shall be tried by a Judicial Magistrate of First Class or by a Metropolitan Magistrate. An appeal against conviction, and thus an appeal preferred by the victim, would lie before the Sessions Court.

6. 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. If this Court were to proceed to hear and decide the appeal at this stage, it could deprive the parties of an available forum i.e., this Court, for further challenge.

7. Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Yogesh Kataria v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr42 , Abdul Malik v State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr43 , Promila Lekhi v. Safe Hands Chits Pvt. Ltd. & Anr44, Shri Ujjawal Arora v. State and Ors45, taking note of the decision in Celestium Financial(Supra), have allowed the withdrawal of leave petitions filed before this Court with liberty to the petitioners/complainants to approach the concerned Sessions Court.

8. Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Gunjan w/o Alok 42 decided on 16.07.2025 in CRL.LP. 367/2025 43 decided on 22.07.2025 in CRL.LP. 378/2025 44 decided on 14.07.2025 in CRL.LP. 360/2025 45 decided on 15.07.2025 in CRL.LP./2025 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/11/2025 at 21:00:04 Khandelwal v. Parvaiz Hussain46, Dnyaneshwar Dinkar Badve v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr47 , the High Court of Karnataka in Sidagondappa vs Shafi Ahammad48, Sri T H Lenkappa vs Sri Sanjay49, High Court of Chattisgarh in Nemnath Yogi vs. Yashwant Chandravanshi50 , Neelam Sahu v. Narad Nagwanshi51 , and Smt. Kirti Kurian v. Ajay Singh; the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Urmila Madrah v. Samarpan Jain52 and the High Court of Gujarat in Baroda Cricket Association v. State of Gujarat & Anr53 , Gauhati High Court in Bhargab Kaushik v. Dilip Kumar Bhagabati54, Allahabad High Court in Indian Farm Forestry Development Cooperative Ltd v. Mangala Trading Company55 and Himachal Pradesh High Court in Roshan Chauhan vs . Mohan Lal56 have also relied on Celestium Financial (Supra) to relegate the parties to contest their case before the Sessions Court.

9. In view of the above, learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw this petition, with liberty to approach the concerned Sessions Court.

10. Considering the above noted legal position, 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 46 decided on 21.07.2025 in Criminal Application (APPA) No. 150/2023 in Criminal Appeal ST. No. 10465/2022 47 decided on 24.07.2025 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 793/2025 48 decided on 31.07.2025 in CRL.A No. 200021 of 2018 49 decided on 23.07.2025 in CRL.A No. 146 OF 2015 50 decided on 07.08.2025 in CRMP No. 579 of 2021 51 decided on 16.07.2025 in ACQA No. 340 of 2018 52 decided on 21.07.2025 in CRL.A. No. 11872 of 2022 53 decided on 17.06.2025 in R/CR.MA/3473/2025 54 decided on 04.08.2025 in Crl.L.P./34/2025 55 decided on 28.07.2025 in APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 56 of 2025 56 decided on 21.07.2025 in Cr. MP(M) No. 1629 of 2025 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/11/2025 at 21:00:04 as an appeal under the proviso to Section 413 of BNSS (formerly Section 372 of CrPC) and numbered accordingly.

11. 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, on 29.11.2025 for directions.

12. 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.

13. Considering that the matter has been pending for considerable time, learned Appellate Court is requested to make an endeavour to dispose the matter as expeditiously as possible.

14. The earlier date fixed, if any, before this Court stands cancelled.

15. It is made clear that 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.

16. A copy of the order be sent to the concerned Principal District and Sessions Judge for necessary information and compliance.

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J NOVEMBER 10, 2025 ga This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/11/2025 at 21:00:04