Reclaiming the Victim's Voice: The Supreme Court's Progressive Step Under Section 372 CrPC

A three-judge Supreme Court of India bench held for the first time in the case of Celestium Financial Services Ltd. v. A. Gnanasekaran that a private complainant under the Negotiable Instruments Act can appeal an acquittal as a “victim” under the proviso to Sec 372 of the CrPC without obtaining special leave. This is a transformative step towards the victim-centered approach rooted in the human rights principle of access to remedy and justice.

The case involved a complainant in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, who had approached the court to appeal an acquittal. The High Court rejected it, ruling that the complainant had to obtain special leave under Section 378(4) of the CrPC. The Supreme Court reversed this. It ruled that the complainant, who had suffered pecuniary loss, is a "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC and hence can appeal directly under the 2009 proviso to Section 372 — without the procedural bar of obtaining leave under Section 378(4).

The ruling extends the reasoning of the previous case, Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka, in which the Supreme Court had already held that the 2008 amendment was intended to provide a real and enforceable right to appeal to victims. This was done to keep up the intent of the legislature and not reduce it to a mere narrow reading. This judgment had affirmed that victims could appeal acquittals under the 2009 proviso without seeking leave. However, various rulings had created ambiguity by suggesting that complainants still needed to approach under Section 378(4), and the confusion persisted. Celestium resolves this conflict by clarifying that the complainant’s status as a “victim” is sufficient for invoking Section 372.

It is considered a positive and reformative step, further strengthening the victim-centric approach as aimed by the 2008 amendments as well. The ruling essentially resolves a longstanding uncertainty within the court of appeal system for private prosecution. The ruling is consistent with the wider constitutional spirit of access to justice and recognizes the evolving victim's role from a passive to a participatory one.

The rationale of the Court was based squarely on the statutory interpretation of Section 2(wa), which leaves no doubt that a victim is anyone who incurs loss or injury as a result of an offence. Economic loss, such as resulting from a dishonoured cheque, is no exception. In accepting complainants under the NI Act as victims, the Court gave them an independent voice — one that does not require state validation to be heard in appellate proceedings.

Human Rights, Constitutional Values, and Global Context

This judgment has far-reaching human rights implications as well. The Supreme Court drew reference from the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, which calls upon the states to extend victims' access to justice and early redress. The Court's reading of Indian law in accordance with these international norms makes India an even stronger jurisdiction that does not just protect but also empowers victims. The decision gives actual content to concepts such as dignity, fairness, and equal access, all of which are at the heart of both Indian constitutional law and international human rights systems.

Constitutionally, this decision fits squarely within the expanding interpretation of Article 21, the right to life and personal liberty, which has long been read to include procedural fairness and access to justice. It also supports the aims of Article 39A, which calls for equal justice and free legal aid. By recognizing the victim’s right to appeal independently, Celestium strengthens these constitutional guarantees and anchors them in procedural practice.

Seen in comparative perspective, India's position following Celestium is much more victim-oriented than most other common law jurisdictions. Victims, for instance, are unable to appeal an acquittal in the United Kingdom. The Victims' Right to Review Scheme (VRR) permits victims to seek review of the Crown Prosecution Service's decision to charge or otherwise not prosecute, but once an acquittal is entered by a court, it is final. The UK's robust double jeopardy approach leaves victims with no right of appeal even when the acquittal seems unjust. Likewise, under United States law, the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment bars retrial after an acquittal, and the victims have no statutory or constitutional recourse for appeal. In the European Union, the Victims' Rights Directive provides that victims should be treated with respect, kept informed, and heard in proceedings, but challenging an acquittal is not common and generally lies with the public prosecutor. Victim appeals are either absent or strictly limited. Conversely, Celestium strongly positions India at a position permitting victims not just to take part but to appeal an acquittal autonomously without state involvement or judicial authorization - a broader and more empowering privilege than in most comparable jurisdictions.

Ultimately, Celestium is a landmark in victim jurisprudence. It bridges the gap between procedural justice and substantive equality, ensuring that victims are no longer reduced to secondary stakeholders in criminal trials. The judgment by allowing them to initiate appeals independently aligns with India’s constitutional ethos and also places the victim at the heart of the legal process. In doing so, it showcases a broader transformation from a system where justice was done on behalf of the victim to one where justice includes the victim.