Bhagwati Devi Sharma v. Sachin

IN TH

BHAGWATI D

SACHIN

CORAM: HO Present: Non

HARPREET SI

¶1Th of the Code of C of leave to appe by the learned from complaint Instruments Act

2.

The cheque of the available on the judgment dated

3.

The Gnanasekaran discussion and Cr.P.C., conclud HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR

CR

Date of d DEVI SHARMA

V/S

ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARP ne for the appellant.

**** INGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) e present application has been p Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein eal against the judgment of acqu Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, F t dated 24.01.2017 filed unde t, 1881. e complaint(supra) was filed o amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. Aft e record, the learned trial Court

12.11.2018. e Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/ Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Crimin comparative interpretation of ded that the victim has a right t AB AND HARYANA RH RM-A-253-2019

decision: 21.07.2025

...APPELLANT

...RESPONDENT PREET SINGH BRAR preferred under Section 378(4) nafter 'CR.P.C.') seeking grant uittal dated 12.11.2018 passed Faridabad in a case stemming er Section 138 of Negotiable n the ground of dishonour of ter assessing all the material acquitted the respondents vide M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. nal) 208, after considerable Sections 372 and 378(4) of

372 of Cr.P.C. Nagarathna, the before the Court of Sessions. S following was held: "7.12 The reasons for the a see and can be elaborated as Firstly, the victim of a crime prefer an appeal which can condition precedent. In the Section 138 of the Act, i.e. cheque is a person who ha offence committed by a pe offence, namely, the accus dishonoured. Secondly, the right of a victim par with the right of an conviction, who, as a matter under Section 374 of the Cr crime has the right to prefer as a matter of right and conditions. Similarly, a victi nature of the crime, uncond prefer an appeal. Thirdly, it is for this reason fit to insert the proviso mandating any condition pr victim of an offence, which legal representatives of a de an appeal. On the contrary, as against a through the Public Prosecuto the complainant does not pre course such an appeal is However, it is not always complainant to prefer an ap Speaking through Justice B.V. bove distinction are not far to s follows: must have an absolute right to nnot be circumscribed by any instant case, a victim under , a payee or the holder of a as suffered the impact of the erson who is charged of the sed, whose cheque has been m of a crime must be placed on accused who has suffered a r of right can prefer an appeal rPC. A person convicted of a r an appeal under Section 374 not being subjected to any im of a crime, whatever be the ditionally must have a right to that the Parliament thought it to sub-section 372 without recedent to be fulfilled by the h expression also includes the eceased victim who can prefer an order of acquittal, the State, or can prefer an appeal even if efer such an appeal, though of with the leave of the court . necessary for the State or a ppeal. But when it comes to a

4.

Fur two Judge benc Intelligence vs. Criminal Appea a rule of thum through Justice J victim's right to prefer an ap special leave to appeal Section 378(4) of the CrPC w been intended by the Parliam to Section 372 of the CrPC. Fourthly, the Parliament ha circumscribe the victim's righ has with regard to a comp appeal. On the other hand, t proviso to Section 372 so as for the victim of an offence grounds mentioned therein a Fifthly, the involvement of th under Section 138 of the Act This is because the complain in the nature of a private co the CrPC and Section 143 intention incorporates the p matter of trial of such a deem offence. Therefore, the comp dishonour of cheque must terms of the proviso to Sectio of victim under Section 2(wa) rther still, applying the doctrine ch of the Hon'ble Supreme Cou Raj Kumar Arora in Criminal A al No. 272 of 2014 decided on 1 mb, judgments shall be applica J.B. Pardiwala, the following wa ppeal, the insistence on seeking from the High Court under would be contrary to what has ment by insertion of the proviso as not amended Section 378 to ht to prefer an appeal just as it plainant or the State filing an the Parliament has inserted the s to envisage a superior right e to prefer an appeal on the s compared to a complainant. he State in respect of an offence t is conspicuous by its absence. nt filed under that provision is omplaint as per Section 200 of 3 of the Act by an express provisions of the CrPC in the med offence tried as a criminal plainant, who is the victim of a be construed to be victim in on 372 read with the definition ) of the CrPC." e of prospective overruling, a urt in Directorate of Revenue Appeal No. 1319 Of 2013 with

17.04.2025 has clarified that as able retrospectively. Speaking as opined:

"91. The declaration of a st rights, by the legislature, is unless it is expressly or by n have retrospective operatio Constitutio Futuris Form Praeteritis" indicating that what is to follow and not presumption of prospectivi generally said to operate un an express provision in the s is otherwise discernible throu is because such statutes wo affecting vested rights, imp existing obligations. Howeve an opinion as regards th provision is subsequently ov larger bench, the consequen different and by default, retr settled law that the law retrospective and is normall the inception.

¶92The operation of a newly not be confused with the effe or decision which interprets declares the meaning of construed from the date of i the judgment declares what time when the law was prom retrospective effect. On the c rule which is presumed to b made retrospective. What fo decision or judgment enunc applicable to all cases irresp tatute dealing with substantive s considered to be prospective necessary implication made to on. The legal maxim "Nova man Imponere Debet, Non a new law ought to regulate t the past, carries with it a ity and this presumption is nless the contrary is shown by statute or if the retrospectivity ugh necessary implication.This ould have the consequence of pose new burdens or impair er, when a decision rendering he interpretation of a penal verruled by the decision of a nce of the overruling is starkly ospective. This is because it is w declared by this Court is ly assumed to be the law from ly enacted statute or rule must ect of a judgment. A judgement s a statute or provision thereof the statute as it should be its enactment. In other words, the legislature had said at the mulgated and therefore, it has contrary, it is the statute or the be prospective unless expressly ollows from the same, is that a ciating a principle of law is pective of the stage of pendency

Rel rendered by a C CRM-A-826-202

5.

The Supreme Court Intelligence (sup CRM-A-2700-M Faridabad is dir under Section 37 its disposal on m

6.

The record of the cas

7.

Dis any, also stand d

21.07.2025 himanshu

(i)

(ii) before different forums since the meaning of the law whic the concerned statute or prov to be the law of the land mus the law of the land. This co rationale that the duty of th new law but to mainta one". (emphasis added) liance in this regard can also Co-ordinate bench of this Cour 25 decided on 07.07.2025. erefore, in view of the judgme in Celestium Financial (supra pra) as well as this Court in Sati MA-2018 decided on 02.07.2025 rected to treat the present leave 72 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the merits. e Registry is directed to send the se to the learned Sessions Judge, sposed of, accordingly. Pending disposed of.

(HA

e what has been enunciated is ch existed from the inception of vision. What has been declared st be held to have always been onclusion also stems from the e court is not to "pronounce a ain and expound the old be placed on the judgment rt in Raj Kumar vs. Rajender ents rendered by the Hon'ble a) and Directorate of Revenue ish Kumar vs. Jugal Kishor in 5, the learned Sessions Judge, e to appeal as an appeal filed e same to appropriate Court for e complete paper-book and the , Faridabad, forthwith. g miscellaneous applications, if ARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE