Complainants in cheque bounce cases will be considered 'victims', they can appeal against discharge under the provision of section 372 CrPC: Supreme Court

Complainants in cheque bounce cases will be considered 'victims', they can appeal against discharge under the provision of section 372 CrPC: Supreme Court

================================

June 6, 2025

Compile by Adv. Ranjit Giri, Advocate, Jharkhand High Court 

     The Supreme Court has clarified in an important decision that complainants in cheque bounce cases fall under the definition of 'victims' and they will have the right to appeal against discharge under the provision of section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

The judgment was passed by a bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma in M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran & Ors. [Criminal Appeal Nos. of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.137-139/2025)].

Background of the case:

The appellant M/s Celestium Financial, a registered financial firm, had advanced various loans to the respondents. For part payment of these loans the respondents issued cheques which on being presented to the bank were dishonoured due to "insufficient funds". After serving the statutory notice, the appellant filed three criminal complaints under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act in the Fast Track Court, Alandur.

On 07 November 2023, the trial court acquitted all the three accused on the ground that the complainant had not proved legal liability and the respondents had rebutted the legal presumption under section 139.

Against this, the appellant filed special leave petitions under section 378(4) CrPC in the Madras High Court, which were dismissed on 12 June 2024 holding that there was no manifest error or failure of justice in the judgment of the trial court.

Supreme Court Observations:

The main question before the Supreme Court was whether the complainant in a cheque bounce case could be treated as the 'victim' under section 2(wa) of the CrPC, and whether he could directly appeal under the provision of section 372.

Citing judgments including Mallikarjuna Kodagalli v State of Karnataka [(2019) 2 SCC 752], the Court observed:

"Under Section 138, the complainant is the aggrieved and he has the right to appeal under the provision of Section 372."

The Court also clarified that if the complainant is the aggrieved, he need not take leave under Section 378(4) CrPC. Even in a private complaint case filed by the complainant, if he is the aggrieved, he can directly file an appeal.

 "In such cases, the victim's right to appeal is not bound by any pre-condition and he has the right to appeal against the discharge independently."

Court's decision:

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Madras High Court dated 12 June 2024 and remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration. The court clarified that under Section 138, the complainant is the victim and he automatically has the right to appeal under the provision of Section 372.