Bombay High Court

ANUSAYA DAGADU NAVSAREversusJ. D. ENGINEERING WORKS AND ORS

Decided: 13 January 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: AARTI A SATHE

Holding

The court permits withdrawal of the Section 378(4) application and grants liberty to file a Section 372 appeal within eight weeks, with the benefit of the pending period for condonation of delay.

Summary

The appellant, Anusaya Dagadu Navsare, filed an application for leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the CrPC challenging an acquittal in a summary criminal case where the respondents were found not guilty of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellant, also the complainant and victim, relied on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Celestium Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. A. Gnanasekaran, which permits an appeal under Section 372 of the CrPC in similar circumstances. The High Court allowed the appellant to withdraw the present application and granted liberty to file a Section 372 appeal before the Sessions Court within eight weeks, with the benefit of the time already spent on the withdrawn application for condonation of delay. The court also directed the registry to return the certified copy of the impugned order for filing the appeal. Consequently, the application was disposed of as withdrawn.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant may withdraw the Section 378(4) application and instead file an appeal under Section 372 of the CrPC.
Whether the Supreme Court decision in Celestium Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. A. Gnanasekaran applies to this case.
Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the period the withdrawn application was pending for condonation of delay.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 372, 378(4)
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138

Subjects

Leave to appeal
Summary criminal case
Section 138 NI Act
Section 372 CrPC
Withdrawal of application
Condonation of delay
Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

                                                                                                   1 ALP 21-16.DOC



LAXMI
SUBHASH
                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SONTAKKE
                                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed
by LAXMI
SUBHASH
SONTAKKE
                               APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL NO. 21 OF 2016
Date: 2026.01.13
15:27:45 +0530



                   Anusaya Dagadu Navsare                                           ...Appellant
                          Versus
                   J. D. Engineering Works And Ors                                  ...Respondents
                                                     _______
                   Ms. Siddhi Dawne a/w Sandesh Shinde i/b. Rameshwar Gite for Appellant.
                   Mr. Shailesh Ghag, APP for the State.
                                                            _______

                                               CORAM:           AARTI SATHE, J.

                                               DATE:            13th JANUARY 2026

                   P.C.

                   1.         The present Application is preferred under Section 378(4) of the Code of

                   Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed in

                   Summary Criminal Case No. 2368 of 2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First

                   Class, 3rd Court, Nashik, whereby the Respondents came to be acquitted of the

                   offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.


                   2.            Learned counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that the Applicant

                   is the original complainant as well as the victim in the present case.

                   3.            Learned counsel further submits that in view of the recent decision of

                   the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. A.

                   Gnanasekaran, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320, the Applicant would be

                   entitled to prefer an Appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

                   1973. He, therefore, seeks leave to withdraw the present Criminal Application with




                                                       Page 1 of 2
                   Laxmi
                                                                            1 ALP 21-16.DOC



liberty to file an Appeal under Section 372 of the Code before the learned Sessions

Court.

4.         Reserving the liberty as prayed for, the Applicant is permitted to withdraw

the present Application, in view of the settled legal position as enunciated by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra).

5.         If such Appeal is filed before the learned Sessions Court within a period of

eight (8) weeks from today, the Applicant shall be entitled to the benefit of the period

during which the present Application remained pending, for the purpose of seeking

condonation of delay, if any.

6.         If the applicant prefers an Appeal within a period of 8 weeks as directed,

before the learned Sessions Court, considering that the proceedings in respect of

which the Summary Criminal Cases have been preferred are old proceedings, the

Sessions Court may expeditiously decide the Appeal filed before it.

7.         The Registry is directed to verify and return the original certified copy of

the impugned judgment and order to the learned Advocate for the Applicant, for the

purpose of filing the Appeal before the Sessions Court, on submitting a photocopy of

the impugned order. Registry shall verify the photocopy and return the certified copy

to the learned Advocate for the Applicant.


8.         The Appeal is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid

liberty.


                                                 (AARTI SATHE, J.)




                                   Page 2 of 2
Laxmi

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…