In a decision that brings massive relief to thousands of litigants across the country, the Supreme Court of India has provided much-needed clarity on a long-standing legal debate: Can a person who files a cheque bounce case (the complainant) appeal against an acquittal order without seeking "special leave" from the High Court?

The Bench, comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, has ruled in the case of M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran that a complainant in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act case is indeed a "victim." Consequently, they possess a substantive right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), bypassing the stricter requirements of Section 378(4).

For years, legal experts and High Courts were divided on which path a complainant should take if they lost a cheque bounce case in the trial court.

Section 378(4) CrPC: Traditionally, if a "complaint case" (like a cheque bounce) ended in acquittal, the complainant had to approach the High Court and ask for "special leave" (permission) to file an appeal. If the High Court refused leave, the case ended there.
Section 372 CrPC (Proviso): Introduced in 2009, this gives a "victim" the right to appeal against an acquittal as a matter of right. Crucially, a victim does not need to ask the court for permission (leave) to file this appeal.

The question was: Is a person whose cheque bounced a "complainant" who must ask for permission, or a "victim" who has an absolute right to appeal?

The matter reached the Supreme Court after a financial firm, M/s Celestium Financial, saw its cheque bounce complaints dismissed by a Magistrate. When the firm approached the Madras High Court to appeal, the High Court refused to grant "leave to appeal," stating that the firm hadn't shown enough reason to interfere with the lower court's decision. This effectively left the firm without a remedy, leading them to challenge this "procedural gatekeeping" before the Top Court.

The Supreme Court analyzed the definition of a "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC. A victim is defined as anyone who has suffered "loss or injury" due to the act of the accused.

The Bench observed:

Economic Loss is Injury: A person whose cheque is dishonored suffers a clear financial loss. This makes them a "victim" in every sense of the word.
Legislative Intent: The 2009 amendment was meant to empower victims. Restricting a complainant from using Section 372 just because they initiated the case via a private complaint would defeat the purpose of the law.
No Choice Needed: The Court clarified that if a person is both the complainant and the victim, they can choose the more favorable route—Section 372. They do not need to follow the "cumbersome" process of Section 378(4).

Key Takeaways for Litigants

This judgment changes the landscape of cheque bounce litigation in several ways:

Direct Right of Appeal: You no longer need to beg the High Court for "permission" to challenge a wrong acquittal. You can file your appeal as a right.
Correct Forum: If a Magistrate acquits the accused, the "victim" can now file an appeal directly in the Sessions Court under Section 372, instead of rushing to the High Court under Section 378(4). This makes justice more accessible and cheaper.
Equality with the Accused: Just as an accused has a right to appeal against a conviction without asking for permission, the victim now has a symmetric right to appeal against an acquittal.

By recognizing the economic pain of a cheque bounce as a "victimization," the Supreme Court has removed a major procedural hurdle. This ruling ensures that substantive justice is not sacrificed at the altar of technicalities. For those fighting long-drawn battles over dishonored cheques, the doors to the appellate courts are now wider than ever.

Case Title: M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran

Citation: 2025 INSC 804 / 2025 (4) KHC 189