The Punjab & Haryana High Court has affirmed that a victim in a private complaint case under the CrPC has an independent right to appeal against an order of acquittal under Section 372, irrespective of the procedural route previously assumed. This ruling resolves longstanding ambiguity and aligns with the Supreme Court’s recent clarification in Celestium Financial v. Gnanasekaran, significantly expanding access to appellate remedies for victims in non-state prosecuted cases.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Bhim Singh, filed a private complaint under Sections 323, 325, and 34 IPC before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Meham, in Complaint Case No. 24 of 2012. The trial court acquitted all accused respondents on 01.10.2016. The applicant sought leave to appeal against this acquittal under Section 378(4) CrPC, which permits appeals by the State or public prosecutor against acquittals in cases instituted on police reports. However, since the case was instituted on a private complaint, Section 378(4) was not applicable. The applicant’s application was filed as a petition for leave to appeal under Section 378(4), but the court recognized the need to recharacterize it under the correct provision.
Key Facts
- The complaint was filed by Bhim Singh as the private complainant and alleged victim of hurt and criminal intimidation.
- The trial court acquitted all accused on 01.10.2016.
- Respondent No. 2, Raj, had already been discharged by an order dated 25.08.2025, rendering the appeal against him infructuous.
- The applicant sought to challenge the acquittal of the remaining respondents.
- No appeal was filed by the State or public prosecutor, as the case was not instituted on a police report.
Procedural History
- 2012: Private complaint filed under Sections 323/325/34 IPC before Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Meham.
- 01.10.2016: Trial court acquitted all accused.
- 2016: Applicant filed application for leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC.
- 05.05.2026: Present application heard before the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
The Parties' Positions
Relief Sought
The applicant sought permission to appeal against the acquittal order dated 01.10.2016, and requested that the application be treated as a valid appeal under the correct legal provision.
The Legal Issue
Can a victim of a crime, who filed a private complaint under the CrPC, file an appeal against the order of acquittal under Section 372 CrPC, or is such an appeal restricted to Section 378(4) CrPC, which applies only to state-initiated cases?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320), which held that a victim under Section 2(wa) CrPC is entitled to file an appeal against acquittal under Section 372 CrPC, even in cases instituted on private complaint. It was argued that Section 372 grants an independent right to the victim, distinct from the State’s right under Section 378. The applicant further cited Associated Road Carriers Limited v. Manjit Singh and Satish Kumar v. Jugal Kishor, both decided by coordinate benches of this Court, which had followed Celestium Financial.
For the Respondent/State
The respondents did not contest the applicability of Celestium Financial or the victim’s right under Section 372. The focus of the respondents was on the procedural posture and the discharge of one accused, but they did not oppose the recharacterization of the application as an appeal under Section 372.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the statutory framework under the CrPC, particularly Sections 2(d), 2(n), 2(wa), 24, 200, 372, 377, 378, and 386. It noted that prior to Celestium Financial, courts were divided on whether victims could appeal under Section 372 or were confined to Section 378(4), which was limited to cases initiated by police reports. The Supreme Court in Celestium Financial resolved this conflict by holding that the term ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) includes a complainant in a private complaint case, and that Section 372 grants such a victim an independent right of appeal against acquittal.
"Their Lordships’ have answered the issue in affirmative that whether an appeal would be maintainable under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. [...] by treating the complaint in such a proceeding as a ‘victim’ within the meaning ascribed to the term under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C."
The Court emphasized that Section 372 is a substantive right conferred on the victim, not a procedural mechanism dependent on the nature of the prosecution. It further noted that the earlier decision in Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka (2019) 2 SCC 752, which had restricted victim appeals to Section 378(4), was effectively overruled by Celestium Financial. The Punjab & Haryana High Court affirmed its own prior rulings in Associated Road Carriers Limited and Satish Kumar, which had already adopted this interpretation.
The Court held that there was no justification to deny the applicant the benefit of this clear and binding precedent. The application, though filed under Section 378(4), was in substance an appeal by a victim against acquittal and therefore must be treated as one under Section 372.
The Verdict
The application is disposed of by directing the learned Sessions Judge to treat the petition as an appeal filed under Section 372 CrPC. The appeal shall be heard on merits by an appropriate court without regard to any delay in filing, as the right to appeal is substantive and not subject to limitation bars in such cases. The Registry is directed to transmit the complete paper-book and return the trial court record to the Sessions Judge forthwith. All pending miscellaneous applications are dismissed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Victim Appeals Are Now Expressly Permitted Under Section 372 CrPC
- Practitioners must now file appeals against acquittals in private complaint cases under Section 372 CrPC, not Section 378(4).
- The victim’s right to appeal is independent of the State’s role and does not require a public prosecutor’s intervention.
- Delay in filing such appeals cannot be a ground for dismissal if the appeal is filed within the statutory period under Section 372(2).
Precedent from Celestium Financial Is Binding Across All High Courts
- All High Courts are bound by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Celestium Financial v. Gnanasekaran.
- Any order rejecting a victim’s appeal on the ground that it must be filed under Section 378(4) is legally unsustainable.
- Lower courts must now treat private complainants as ‘victims’ under Section 2(wa) and permit appeals under Section 372 without requiring leave.
Procedural Correction Is Permissible
- Courts may recharacterize applications filed under the wrong provision (e.g., Section 378(4)) as appeals under Section 372 if the substance of the plea is that of a victim seeking redress.
- This avoids technical dismissal and upholds the substantive right of victims.
