Professional Documents
Culture Documents
IN THE
AT ALLAHABAD
IN THE MATTERS OF
VERSUS
STATE OF UP......RESPONDENT
Index of Authorities.................................................................................................................3
Statement of Jurisdiction.........................................................................................................4
Statement of Facts....................................................................................................................5
Summary of Arguments...........................................................................................................7
Arguments Advanced...............................................................................................................8
Prayer......................................................................................................................................11
2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Ashok Kumar Srivastava vs State of UP, in application u/s 482 no. 5934 of 2012...................9
The Bhajanpura Cooperative Urban Thrift & Credit Society LTD. vs Sushil Kumar,
CRL.A.972/2012..................................................................................................................10
The Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited vs M/s Atma Tube Products Limited and another,
Ved Prakash Yadav and 2 others vs. State of U.P. And 2 others, criminal revision no. 3539 of
2015........................................................................................................................................9
3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
It is most humbly submitted before this Honble High Court has the requisite territorial and
subject matter jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate this matter under Section 482 of the
4
STATEMENT OF FACTS
I.
The present factual matrix concerns with the application under Section 482 CrPC filed with
the prayer to quash the judgement and order passed by the Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court, Jhansi in the matters of Anil Kumar Aggarwal vs Braj Bhushan
II.
The opposite party had taken Rs. 1,62,000/-, time to time, from the applicant and had issued
two cheques in turn of the said amount to the applicant, which were dishonoured due to
insuffiency of funds in the account of the opposite part. After fulfillment of the legal
formalities, the applicant filed a complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act,
III.
The Magistrate concerned vide its order after trial acquitted the opposite party from the
charges. Aggrieved with the said judgement and order, the applicant filed an appeal which
was turned down on maintainability that an appeal can only be filed before the High Court
5
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
I. Whether against the same judgment and order of acquittal in a complaint case,
in a situation when victim and complainant both are same persons, victim may
file appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC before the Sessions Judge or
abridged.
B. The victim in a private complaint case has the right to appeal under Section
372 CrPC.
C.
6
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I. Whether against the same judgment and order of acquittal in a complaint case,
in a situation when victim and complainant both are same persons, victim may
file appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC before the Sessions Judge or
the acquittal in a complaint case, in a situation when victim and complainant both are
the same person, may file an appeal under the provisio to Section 372 CrPC before the
Sessions Judge.
A.
7
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I. Whether against the same judgment and order of acquittal in a complaint case,
in a situation when victim and complainant both are different persons, victim
may file appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC before the Sessions Judge
the acquittal in a complaint case, in a situation when victim and complainant both are
the same person, may file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC before the
Sessions Judge.
A. The rights of the victim, under Section 372, in a Complaint case cannot be
abridged.
The Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment, 2008 inserted the definition of victim
under Section 372, victim means 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 and
the expression "victim" includes his or her guardian or legal heir. This definition
provided three circumstances where the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal
on the guardian and legal heirs of the victim, for example the right to file an appeal
against the adverse order under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and claim compensation under
new Section 357 -A Cr.P.C. Thus under the present factual matrix the Appellant is a
victim and has the right to file an appeal under Section 372 as the victim cannot be
deprived of her statutory right to file an appeal before the Sessions Judge concerned
against the judgment and order of acquittal just on the basis of technicalities like
8
absence of the word "complaint or complainant" in the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.
This is just a technicality. Since the word "complaint" is not mentioned or included in
the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., the victim lady should not be compelled to seek
the definition of the word "victim" and that of injury, the word "injury" is included in
the definition of the victim. Hence, the victim means the person who has suffered any
loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission, for which the accused person
has been charged. Thus, any person who suffers any loss or injury illegally in body,
mind, reputation or property by reason of the act or omission of the accused person, is
victim.
Section 372 Cr.P.C. has been inserted in the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 2008 and has come into force on 31.12.2009, hence against the
order of acquittal passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, the appeal of the complainant
and the victim was maintainable u/s 372 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Judge. Hence the
contention of learned counsel for the revisionists that the appeal of the complainant
was not maintainable and the judgment and order of the lower appellate court is
'complainant' in a complaint case filed under Section 138 N.I. Act and therefore, as a
372 Cr.P.C.3
B. The victim in a private complaint case has the right to appeal under Section
372 CrPC.
1 Ashok Kumar Srivastava vs State of UP, in application u/s 482 no. 5934 of 2012.
2 Ved Prakash Yadav and 2 others vs. State of U.P. And 2 others, criminal revision no. 3539 of 2015.
3 The Bhajanpura Cooperative Urban Thrift & Credit Society LTD. vs Sushil Kumar, CRL.A.972/2012.
9
It is most humbly submitted before this Honble High Court that the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in a landmark judgement has laid down certain conditions where
avail remedy of appeal against acquittal under Section 378(4) only except
recognized under proviso to Section 372, are not required to seek leave and
special leave to appeal from the High Court in the manner contemplated
under Section 378(3)& (4), for the Legislature while enacting proviso
to Section 372 has prescribed no such fetter nor has it applied the same
language used for appeals against acquittals while enacting sub-Section (3) &
4 The Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited vs M/s Atma Tube Products Limited and another,
Criminal Misc. No. M-24196 of 2009.
10
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited
- Allow the Appellant to appeal before the Sessions Court under Section 372 CrPC.
And further pass any other order in favour of the prosecution as may be deemed fit by the
11