CRM-A/1677/2024 of ADESH KUMAR Vs MAHESH TANWAR on 10 September 2026

IN THE

ADESH KUM

MAHESH TA

CORAM: H

Present: M

f

SHALINI S

T 378(4) Cr.P. Magistrate Ist “Adesh kuma Instruments A

B to Section 372 2023), which

C l

PUNJAB AND HARYA CHANDIGA

C D

MAR

V/S ANWAR

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE S Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for for the appellant. **** SINGH NAGPAL, J. (ORA The victim/complainant seeks le C. against impugned order o t Class, Faridabad dated 16.10. ar Vs Mahesh Tanwar.” under Act. Before proceeding further, it wo 2 Cr.P.C. (now Section 413 of B reads as under:

372. No appeal to lie unless oth No appeal shall lie from Criminal Court except as provide law for the time being in force. ANA HIGH COURT AT ARH CRM-A-1677-2024 Date of Decision: 10.09.2026

… Appellant …Respondent SHALINI SINGH NAGPA r AL) eave to file appeal under Secti of acquittal of learned Judic 2024 in complaint case caption r Sections 138/142 of Negotiab ould be apposite to refer to provi Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhi herwise provided. - m any judgment or order of ed for by this Code or by any oth T AL ion cial ned ble iso ita, f a her JYOTI

P a c c a C

I 3 RCR (Crim and 378(4) of case has a rig of acquittal b reproduced as “ t C w p n p S i r g 7-2024 Provided that the victim shall h against any order passed by the convicting for a lesser off compensation, and such appeal appeal ordinarily lies against Court. In M/s Celestium Financial Ver minal) 208, Hon’ble Supreme C f Cr.P.C. and has concluded that ght to file an appeal under Sectio before the Court of Sessions. Re s under: “………. But when it comes to a the insistence on seeking specia Court under section 378(4) of t what has been intended by the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr. not amended Section 378 to c prefer an appeal just as it has w State filing an appeal. On the nserted the proviso to Section right for the victim of an offe grounds mentioned therein as co - have a right to prefer an appe e Court acquitting the accused ffence or imposing inadequa shall lie to the Court to which the order of conviction of su (Emphasis supplie rsus A. Gnanasekaran etc.; (202 Court has interpreted Sections 3 t the victim in a private compla on 372 of Cr.P.C. against the ord elevant portion of the judgment victim’s right to prefer an appe al leave to appeal from the Hi the Cr.P.C. would be contrary e Parliament by insertion of t .P.C. Fourthly, the parliament h ircumscribe the victim’s right with regard to a complaint or t other hand, the Parliament h 372 so as to envisage a superi ence to prefer an appeal on t mpared to a complainant.”

eal or ate an uch ed)

int der t is eal, igh to the has to the has ior the JYOTI

O Revenue Inte would also be “ p b j t O b f p o e i

A been followed and others; Haryana and matters to the filed under Se

L position of law

I Court of Sess 7-2024 Observations of Hon’ble Sup elligence Versus Raj Kumar A e relevant and the same are repro “92. ……. A judgment or decis provision thereof declares the m be construed from the date of i udgment declares what the legi the law was promulgated and th On the contrary, it is the statute be prospective unless expressly from the same, is that a deci principle of law is applicable to of pendency before different enunciated is the meaning of nception of the concerned statue Abovementioned judgments of H d by Co-ordinate Benches of this CRM-A-380-MA of 2017 an d others; CRM-A-489-MA of e Court of Sessions with a direct ection 372 Cr.P.C. and to decide Learned counsel for the applican w. In view of the pronouncements a sions, Faridabad. Learned Sessio - preme Court in Directorate Arora; 2025 SCC Online SC 8 oduced as under: sion which interprets a statute meaning of the statute as it shou its enactment. In other words, t islature had said at the time wh erefore, it has retrospective effe e or the rule which is presumed made retrospective. What follo ision or judgment enunciating all cases irrespective of the sta forums since what has be the law which existed from t e or provision.” Hon’ble Supreme Court have al s Court in Mewa Devi Versus Pa nd Dharampal Versus State f 2017, while relegating simi tion to treat the same as an appe the same in accordance with law nt has not controverted the abo above, the matter is relegated to t ons Judge, Faridabad shall treat t of or uld the hen ect. to ws g a age een the lso ala of lar eal w. ove the the JYOTI

instant leave entrust the sam jurisdiction fo

L before learned person or thro

L to learned Ses

D

10.09.2026 Jyoti-V

7-2024 to appeal as an appeal filed un me to himself/herself or assign it or its disposal on merits, in accor Learned counsel for applicant sh d Sessions Judge, Faridabad wi ough counsel.

Let entire paper book and record ssions Judge, Faridabad forthwith Disposed of accordingly. (SHALINI

J Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable - nder Section 372 Cr.P.C. and m t to some other Court of compete rdance with law. hall inform the applicant to appe ithin a period of 15 days either d appended thereto be transmitt h. SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE d : Yes/No : Yes/No

may ent ear in ted JYOTI