Madhya Pradesh HC: Complainants Under Section 138 NI Act Are Victims Entitled To Appeal As Of Right

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has solidified the status of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 complainants as 'victims', effectively removing the procedural hurdle of seeking special leave to appeal against acquittals. This ruling harmonizes the rights of economic crime victims with those of traditional penal offence victims, ensuring an unconditional right to challenge adverse trial outcomes.

Justice Gajendra Singh presided over the matter, interpreting the interplay between the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court addressed the procedural route for a complainant challenging an acquittal in a cheque dishonour case, following the landmark precedent set by the Supreme Court.

Key Takeaways

Unconditional Right to Appeal

Complainants under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are now recognized as victims, granting them a statutory right to appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 without seeking special leave.

Parity Between Accused and Victim

The ruling places the victim's right to appeal on par with the accused's right to appeal against conviction under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, removing disparate conditions for judicial review.

Deemed Offence Victimology

The law now explicitly recognizes that a payee or holder of a dishonoured cheque suffers economic injury, qualifying them as a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Applicability to New Statutes

The court noted the corresponding provisions in the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, indicating that the principle remains robust under the newly enacted criminal laws.

Legal Recognition of the 'Victim' Status

The court emphasized that the distinction between an informant and a victim is crucial in determining the appellate route. Relying on the decision in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. ( "2025 INSC 804": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 7318), the court noted that in the context of Section 138, the complainant and the victim are effectively the same person.

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."

Procedural Independence from Section 378(4)

The judgment clarifies that while Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires a complainant to seek 'special leave' to appeal an acquittal, a 'victim' proceeding under the proviso to Section 372 is not bound by this rigour. The court highlighted that the Parliament intended to provide a superior, unconditional right to the victim.

The Court has the following directions:

"The petitioner has liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned judgment dated 03.09.2013 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 court forthwith."

Ratio

A complainant in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 qualifies as a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Consequently, such a person is entitled to file an appeal against an order of acquittal as a matter of right under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and is not required to seek special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Background

The case originated from a miscellaneous petition filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by Maruti Steel, challenging the acquittal of Ankit Industries by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, in a Section 138 case. During the pendency of this petition, the Supreme Court delivered a definitive ruling in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. ( "2025 INSC 804": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 7318), which clarified the appellate rights of complainants.

In light of this development, the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition for special leave to instead pursue the statutory remedy of appeal before the Sessions Court. The High Court, following the binding precedent, allowed the petition to be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Sessions Judge, ensuring that the delay caused by the pursuit of the wrong remedy would not prejudice the victim's right to a hearing on merits.

Case Details:
Case No.: MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8979 of 2013
Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-IND:28552
Case Title: Proprietor Maruti Steel Thru. Ajay Khandelwal Versus Proprietor Ankit Industries Thru. Rajesh Kimti
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Shri Piyush Shrivastava - Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MP) 32676