Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that victims, including complainants in Section 138 cases, can file appeals under Section 372 proviso as a matter of right without seeking special leave under Section 378(4) of the CrPC. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekran (2025). 

What was the Background of M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekran (2025) Case?   

• The appellant, a registered partnership firm engaged in the finance business, had extended financial assistance to the respondents over time. 
• Respondent No.1, who runs a catering business under the name "R.R. Caterers," was the principal borrower and availed several loans from the appellant. 
• To obtain further loans, Respondent No.1 used Respondent Nos.2 and 3, who acted on his behalf. 
• As of 27th April 2015, Respondent No.1 had an outstanding loan of ₹16,00,000 due to the appellant. 
• On 15th May 2015, Respondent No.1 and his spouse entered into a sale agreement with Mr. S. Babu, an employee of the appellant, resulting in a new loan of ₹20,00,000 at 18% interest per annum. 
• On 13th May 2016, Respondent No.2 borrowed ₹15,00,000 at 20% interest, to be repaid in 12 monthly instalments of ₹1,25,000 each. Partial repayments were made on 9th June 2016, 30th September 2016, and 15th July 2017. 
• On 30th November 2016, Respondent No.3 availed a loan of ₹12,00,000 at 24% interest, to be repaid in 12 equal instalments of ₹1,00,000. 
• On 31st May 2017, Respondent No.1 took another loan of ₹21,00,000 at 24% interest. ₹2,94,000 was deducted as interest and ₹18,06,000 was disbursed, repayable in 7 instalments of ₹3,00,000 each. 
• On 17th July 2017, Respondent No.1 secured another loan of ₹15,00,000 at 22.5% interest. After deducting ₹1,42,500 towards interest and ₹3,00,000 as an EMI for the previous loan, the disbursed amount was ₹10,57,500, to be repaid in 5 instalments of ₹3,00,000 each. 
• On 11th September 2017, Respondent No.1 received another loan of ₹25,00,000 at 18% interest. After adjusting interest and two prior EMIs, ₹15,25,000 was disbursed, repayable in 10 monthly instalments of ₹2,50,000. 
• On 29th October 2018, Respondent No.2 issued a cheque for ₹6,25,000, which was dishonoured on 31st October 2018 due to “Funds Insufficient.” 
• On 24th October 2018, Respondent No.3 issued a cheque for ₹10,00,000, which was also dishonoured on 31st October 2018 for the same reason. 
• On 12th November 2018, the appellant issued statutory demand notices under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1999 (NIA) to Respondents 2 and 3. Criminal complaints were later filed and registered as C.C. Nos. 417 and 418 of 2018. 
• On 28th March 2019, Respondent No.1 issued three cheques for ₹9,00,000, ₹12,00,000, and ₹25,00,000, which were all dishonoured on 24th June 2019 due to insufficient funds. 
• A statutory demand notice dated 8th July 2019 was sent to Respondent No.1, and upon non-payment, a complaint was filed as C.C. No. 285 of 2019. 
• On 7th November 2023, the Judicial Magistrate acquitted Respondents 1 to 3 under Section 255(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973 (CrPC), citing that the appellant failed to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt, and the respondents successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 139. 
• The appellant filed special leave to appeal petitions under Section 378(4) of the CrPC, registered as Criminal Appeal SR Nos. 1282, 1300, and 1321 of 2024, against the orders passed in C.C. Nos. 417, 418, and 285 of 2019. 
• On 12th June 2024, the High Court dismissed the petitions, stating that no prima facie case was made out and the findings of acquittal were not perverse or erroneous enough to warrant interference. 
• Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the appellant has now approached the Supreme Court challenging the legality and correctness of the High Court’s order dated 12th June 2024. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

•  Chapter XXIX of the CrPC deals with appeals and Section 372 establishes that no appeal can be filed from any criminal court judgment or order except as provided by the CrPC or other laws in force. 
• The proviso to Section 372 was introduced by the Criminal Procedure Code Amendment Act 2008, effective from December 31, 2009, granting victims limited appeal rights. 
• Under the proviso to Section 372, victims have the right to appeal against court orders that acquit the accused, convict for a lesser offense, or impose inadequate compensation. 
•  The definition of "victim" under Section 2(wa) of CrPC includes any person who has suffered loss or injury due to an act or omission for which the accused is charged, including their guardian or legal heir. 
• Section 378 deals with appeals in cases of acquittal but requires complainants to seek special leave from the High Court under specific conditions. 
• The court distinguished between Section 378 appeals (which require special leave) and Section 372 proviso appeals (which are available as a matter of right to victims). 
•  In cases under Section 138 of the NIA, the complainant is considered both the complainant and the victim since they suffer economic loss due to cheque dishonor. 
• The right to appeal under Section 372 proviso is not circumscribed by conditions precedent, unlike Section 378, making it a superior right for victims. 
• The court emphasized that victim's right to appeal should be placed on par with an accused's right to appeal under Section 374 as a matter of fundamental fairness. 
• Parliamentary intent behind inserting the proviso was to strengthen victim rights without imposing the rigorous conditions required under Section 378. 
• The Court thus set aside the impugned order dated 12th June, 2024, and held that victims (including complainants in Section 138 cases) can file appeals under Section 372 proviso as a matter of right without seeking special leave under Section 378(4) of the CrPC.

Who is a Victim and What is his Right to Appeal? 

• The word ‘victim’ is derived from the latin word “victima” and originally contained the concept of sacrifice. In more contemporary times, the term ‘victim’ has been expanded to imply a victim of war, an accident, a scam, etc. 
• The CrPC was amended by Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (came into effect: 31st December 2009) by virtue of which Section 2 (wa) was added which defines “victim” and a proviso to Section 372 of CrPC was added. 
• Section 2 (wa) defines “victim” as: 
  • A victim is a person who has suffered: 
    • any loss or 
    • any injury 
    • caused by the act or omission of the accused person. 
  • The accused must have been charged for the said act or omission. 
  • The term “victim” also includes: 
    • the guardian of the victim, or 
    • the victim’s legal heir. 
• The proviso to Section 372 of CrPC provides for the right to appeal which is conferred on victims.  
• Section 372 of CrPC provides: 
  • No appeal can be filed against any judgment or order of a Criminal Court unless specifically allowed by this Code or any other law currently in force. 
  • The victim has the right to file an appeal against court orders that acquit the accused of all charges. 
  • The victim can also appeal when the court convicts the accused for a lesser offense than what was originally charged. 
  • The victim has the right to appeal if the court imposes inadequate compensation in the case. 
  • When a victim files such an appeal, it must be submitted to the same court that would normally hear appeals against conviction orders from that particular court. 
  • This provision ensures that victims have legal recourse when they believe justice has not been adequately served in criminal proceedings. 

What is the Difference Between Appeal under Section 378 and Section  372 (Proviso)?