In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has affirmed that a complainant in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, qualifies as a "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Consequently, such a complainant is entitled to file an appeal against an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, without the necessity to seek special leave under Section 378(4) of the CrPC.
The case in question involved a complaint filed by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging dishonour of a cheque. The trial court acquitted the accused, prompting the complainant to seek leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the CrPC. The Madras High Court denied the application, leading the complainant to approach the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, emphasized that the complainant in such cases is indeed a "victim" due to the alleged dishonour of a cheque. The Court referred to the definition of "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, which includes a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged. The Court noted that the definition is inclusive and encompasses individuals who have suffered financial harm, such as in cases of cheque dishonour.
Furthermore, the Court observed that the 2009 amendment to the CrPC, which introduced the proviso to Section 372, was intended to empower victims by granting them the right to appeal against acquittals. The purpose was to provide relief to victims who previously had limited recourse in criminal proceedings. The Court clarified that this provision applies to all victims, including those in private complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Addressing the procedural aspect, the Supreme Court held that the complainant need not have invoked Section 378(4) of the CrPC, as the proviso to Section 372 provides an alternative avenue for filing an appeal. The Court emphasized that the complainant, as a victim of the dishonour of a cheque, is entitled to exercise the option under the proviso to Section 372 and need not elect to proceed under Section 378.
This judgment has significant implications for the rights of complainants in cheque dishonour cases. It ensures that individuals who have suffered financial loss due to dishonoured cheques have a clear and accessible legal remedy to challenge acquittals. By recognizing complainants as victims under the CrPC, the Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that individuals who suffer harm should have the opportunity to seek justice through the appellate process.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's decision marks a progressive step in enhancing the rights of complainants in cheque dishonour cases. By affirming their status as victims under the CrPC, the Court has provided a more robust framework for ensuring accountability and justice in financial disputes. This ruling not only clarifies the legal standing of complainants but also underscores the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding the interests of individuals who face financial harm due to dishonoured cheques.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.