In a landmark ruling(*M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran & Ors.*, 2025 INSC 804), the Supreme Court of India clarified that victims of cheque bounce offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) can file an appeal against acquittal **without obtaining special leave under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
This judgment strengthens the rights of financial victims and removes procedural hurdles in cheque dishonour litigation.
Legal Background: Cheque Bounce Cases in India
Section 138 of the NI Act criminalizes the **dishonour of cheques** for reasons such as insufficient funds. Complainants typically seek recourse through a private complaint, but **when the accused is acquitted**, the complainant’s right to appeal has traditionally been subject to **leave of the High Court under Section 378(4) CrPC.
This case changes that.
Key Legal Question Before the Court
Can a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case appeal an acquittal directly under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, without obtaining special leave under Section 378(4) CrPC?
Supreme Court’s Verdict: Complainant = Victim = Right to Appeal Without Leave
The Supreme Court held:
> A complainant in a cheque bounce case who suffers financial loss is a ‘victim’ as defined under Section 2(wa) CrPC.
> Therefore, they can appeal an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without needing to seek special leave under Section 378(4).
Legal Principles Highlighted
1. Victim Includes Complainant in Cheque Bounce Cases
The Court emphasized that financial injury from dishonoured cheques qualifies as “injury” under Section 2(wa) CrPC, making the complainant a victim.
2. Independent Right to Appeal for Victims
Under the **proviso to Section 372 CrPC, a victim may appeal:
* An acquittal,
* Conviction for a lesser offence, or
* Inadequate compensation
### 3. **Distinction Between Section 372 (Proviso) and Section 378(4) CrPC
Victim (under Section 372): Can appeal *as a matter of right*.
Complainant (under Section 378(4)): Must obtain *special leave* unless also a victim.
Impact of the Judgment
* ✅ **Clarifies complainant’s right to appeal** in cheque dishonour cases.
* ✅ Empowers **financial victims** by recognizing them as “victims” under criminal law.
* ✅ Prevents misuse of procedural technicalities to deny justice.
* ✅ Reduces litigation burden by bypassing unnecessary leave petitions.
—
Expert Takeaway
This ruling is a **progressive step in victim-centric criminal jurisprudence**. It ensures that victims of financial fraud or deceit through bounced cheques **are not silenced by procedural delays**. It upholds **access to appellate justice** and aligns with the broader trend of expanding victims’ rights in Indian criminal law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has made it clear:
**If you’ve suffered loss due to a bounced cheque, you’re not just a complainant—you’re a victim. And as a victim, you have a direct and unqualified right to appeal an acquittal.**
This decision provides much-needed clarity and relief to lenders, financial institutions, and individual complainants navigating cheque dishonour litigation.