Complainants Under NI Act Qualify As Victims; Can Appeal Acquittals Without Leave: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reinforced the superior status of cheque dishonour complainants, ruling that they qualify as 'victims' and possess an absolute right to appeal acquittals without seeking the Court's special leave. This decision eliminates procedural hurdles that previously forced private complainants to undergo a rigorous screening process before challenging adverse trial court judgments.

Justice Alok Awasthi, presiding over the matter, clarified the maintainability of criminal appeals in cases arising from Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Court was tasked with determining whether a complainant must still seek special leave to appeal under Section 419(4) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) given recent Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Complainant as a 'Victim' Under Penal Law

The High Court placed heavy reliance on the recent dictum of the Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A.Gnanasekaran Etc.Gnanasekaran Etc.. The Court noted that even though Section 138 proceedings originate via a private complaint, the nature of the economic injury suffered by the payee makes them a victim in every sense of the law.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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 which is deemed to be an offence under that provision. In such circumstances, it would be just, reasonable and in consonance with the spirit of the CrPC to hold that the complainant under the Act also qualifies as a victim within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the CrPC."

The Court further highlighted that the right of a victim must be placed on par with the right of an accused. Just as a convicted person can appeal as a matter of right under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a victim must unconditionally have the right to prefer an appeal against acquittal.

Directions Issued to the Parties

The Court has following directions:

"The appellant has liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned judgment dated 30.9.2019 before the concerned Session Judge within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is clarified that if such an appeal is filed before the concerned Session Judge within the time prescribed by this Court, it would not insist upon the limitation while deciding the same and will proceed to decide the same in accordance with law. In that view of the matter, Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned judgment after obtaining the attested photocopy of the same. The record of the case be sent back to the concerned J.M.F.C. forthwith."

Background

The case originated when Smt. Raju Bai Jat (the complainant) challenged the acquittal of Mahendra Jat (the respondent) in a case involving Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The acquittal was ordered by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, District - Dhar. The complainant initially filed an appeal seeking grant of leave to appeal under Section 419(4) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

During the hearing, the Court examined the question of maintainability. The counsel for the applicant cited the latest Supreme Court precedent which clarified that the rigour of obtaining special leave does not apply when the complainant is also the victim. The High Court found that the Parliament, by inserting the proviso to Section 372, intended to give a superior right to victims compared to the State or a general informant.

Ultimately, the High Court disposed of the appeal by granting the appellant liberty to approach the Sessions Court directly, ensuring that the delay caused by filing the wrong forum would not prejudice the victim's right to a hearing on merits.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5497 of 2024
Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-IND:31584
Case Title: SMT. RAJU BAI JAT Versus MAHENDRA JAT
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Shri K.C.Raikwar, learned counsel
For the Respondent(s): Shri Aamir Sheikh, learned counsel

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MP) 36557