From Silence to Remedy: Section 372 CrPC and the Evolving Role of Victims

Introduction

Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, prescribes the general principle that no appeal shall ordinarily lie from any order or judgment of a criminal court except as expressly provided under the law. Yet, a complete change was introduced by way of the 2008 amendment, which added a proviso to entitle victims to a statutory right to appeal an acquittal, conviction of a lesser offence, or unsatisfactory compensation. This was a shift towards a greater victim orientation in criminal trials. The recent Supreme Court ruling in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran puts this proviso into sharp focus¹. The case concerned whether a complainant in a case of cheque bounce, who incurs financial loss, can be a “victim” and appeal an acquittal without requesting special leave. The Court’s ruling dispels a long-standing uncertainty, affirming that these kinds of complainants are well and truly victims in the eyes of the law and are entitled to invoke the remedy under the proviso to Section 372 CRPC as of right.

Understanding Section 372 CrPC

Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) lays down a basic rule: no appeal shall lie against any judgment or order of a criminal court other than as enabled by the Code or any other current law. This reiterates finality of criminal adjudication, preventing prolonged litigation. But an important exception came with the introduction of the 2008 amendment, giving a statutory right of appeal to the victim alone.

This proviso entitles the victim to appeal, without leave of court, in the following instances:

• Acquittal of the accused,
• Conviction of the accused for a lesser offence than that which the victim alleged has been committed,
• Inadequate compensation ordered by the court, or
• Inadequate sentence imposed.

Before this, the victims greatly depended on the State in order to appeal against acquittals or light judgments, thus restricting their autonomy. The amendment therefore represents a transformation away from an entirely State-initiated process to a more victim-oriented justice system in order to ensure that the persons directly affected are entitled to be heard even after judgment.

This framework is maintained under Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which indicates legislative consistency in maintaining victims’ right of appeal.

In substance, Section 372 is a delicate balance – upholding judicial finality with access to review for genuine grievances. It supports the appellate mechanism as a means of judicial review so that mistakes or perceived injustice may be rectified while upholding procedural discipline.

The Recent SC Decision

Background and Facts of the Case

• The appellant, M/s. Celestium Financial being a registered finance partnership firm, had advanced various loans to the respondents from time to time.
• Respondent No.1, who was running “R.R. Caterers,” was the prime borrower; Respondent Nos.2 and 3 took additional loans at his behest.
• From 2015 to 2017, various large loans were advanced by the appellant, for an amount of more than ₹1 crore, which generally carried high interest rates and tiered EMIs.
• As partial payment, Respondents drew several cheques between ₹6.25 lakhs and ₹25 lakhs. The cheques were dishonoured upon presentation for want of funds.
• Statutory notices were sent in terms of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
• On default, three criminal complaints were lodged before the Fast Track Court at Alandur.
• On 7 November 2023, the trial court acquitted all three accused on holding that the appellant was unable to establish the presence of a legally enforceable debt and that the statutory presumption under Section 139 had been rebutted.
• The appellant made an application under Section 378(4) CrPC for special leave to appeal, which was dismissed by the High Court on 12 June 2024.
• The appellant subsequently went to the Supreme Court, exercising their right of appeal as a “victim” under Section 372 proviso CrPC, without the requirement of special leave.

The Court’s Decision and Reasoning

• The Supreme Court overruled the High Court’s denial of leave and held that the appellant is a “victim” as per Section 2(wa) CrPC and is entitled to appeal as of right under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without resorting to Section 378(4).
• The Court reiterated that the proviso to Section 372, introduced by the 2008 Amendment (coming into effect on 31.12.2009), was expressly brought in to authorize victims to appeal against:
  – An acquittal;
  – Conviction for a lesser offence;
  – Inadequate compensation.
• The appellant, who had suffered economic loss from dishonoured cheques, was held to fall under the definition of a “victim”, even though he was the complainant too.
• The Court was not in agreement with the High Court’s opinion that a complainant in a case of cheque bounce should only approach under Section 378(4) CrPC and seek special leave.
• It stated categorically that a complainant and a victim can be identical, and in such a situation, a victim has a standalone statutory right of appeal under the proviso to Section 372.
• The Court drew heavily upon its previous decision in Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka², in which it was held that victims possess a substantive, unconditional right of appeal.
• It also debated dissenting opinions in Mallikarjun Kodagali, where:
  – Lokur, J. preferred granting leave to victims for appeal.
  – Deepak Gupta, J. contended that victims too need to take leave under Section 378(3) if approaching the High Court.
• In the instant case, the bench decided to adopt the liberal view of Lokur, J., affirming that:
  – A Section 138 NI Act complainant who is affected by monetary loss is a victim for the purposes of Section 2(wa) CrPC.
  – A victim under such circumstances is not needed to obtain special leave under Section 378(4).
• The Court pointed out that the intent behind the legislation was to differentiate between victims and complainants and make sure that victims, especially in cheque dishonour, are not remediless.
• The appeal was thus remanded to the High Court for due consideration of the appeal on merits.

Conclusion

The evolution of Section 372 CrPC, particularly post-2008 amendment, is a significant break from the State-centric model of criminal litigation to one that incorporates the voice of the victim meaningfully. By chiseling out statutory appellate right for victims, the provision remedies long-existing lacunae in access to justice for those directly affected by crime. The recent ruling of the Supreme Court consolidates this change by upholding that even complainants in cases of cheque dishonour, who endure direct pecuniary harm, come within the category of “victims” and are entitled to appeal without leave. Together, the language of Section 372 and judicial interpretation highlight a deeper devotion to fair process, responsibility, and victim empowerment.

1. https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/49668/49668_2024_6_10_60765_Judgement_08-Apr-2025.pdf ↩︎
2. Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752. ↩︎