Bombay High Court

PURUSHOTTAM SITARAM CHAUKADEversusDINESH NARAYANLAL CHAUDHARI AND ANR.

Decided: 23 January 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: GAURI GODSE

Holding

The Court held that the applicant may withdraw the application and is granted liberty to file an appeal under Section 372 of the CrPC, with the pendency of the withdrawn application counted for condonation of delay.

Summary

The original complainant in a cheque‑bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed an application under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking leave to appeal after the accused was acquitted. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, the applicant argued that he was entitled to file an appeal under Section 372 of the CrPC. The High Court granted the applicant leave to withdraw the pending application and permitted him to file a Section 372 appeal in the Sessions Court, allowing the period of pendency of the withdrawn application to be counted for condonation of delay. The Court specified that the appeal must be filed within eight weeks from the order. The applicant’s counsel was authorized to obtain a certified copy of the impugned order upon submission of a photocopy. The application was consequently disposed of as withdrawn, subject to the liberty granted.

Issues considered

Whether the complainant is entitled to file an appeal under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code after an acquittal in a Section 138 NI Act case.
Whether the pendency of the application under Section 378(4) can be counted towards condonation of delay for filing the Section 372 appeal.
Whether the Supreme Court precedent in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran is applicable to the present facts.

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

appeal
Section 372 CrPC
condonation of delay
cheque bounce
Negotiable Instruments Act
Criminal Procedure Code
acquittal

Judgment

                                                                      7-ALP-423-2018.doc




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
          rrpillai
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                     CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 423 OF 2018

                        Purushottam Sitaram Chaukade                    ….Applicant
                               vs.
                        Dinesh Narayanlal Chaudhari & Another           … Respondents

                        Mr. Vivek Joshi i/b. Mr. Vikas Shivarkar for the Applicant.
                        Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for the State.


                                                     CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

                                                     DATED : 23rd JANUARY 2026

                        ORDER:

                        1.    This application is filed by the original complainant under

                        Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking leave

                        to file appeal. The applicant is the complainant in the complaint

                        filed under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act,

                        1881. By the impugned order respondent no. 1 is acquitted.

                        2.    Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of

                        the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

                        M/s. Celestium Financial Versus. A. Gnanasekaran 1, the

           Digitally
           signed by
           RAJESHWARI   1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320
RAJESHWARI RAMESH
RAMESH     PILLAI                                      1/3
PILLAI     Date:
           2026.01.28
           14:24:25
           +0530
                                              7-ALP-423-2018.doc



applicant would be entitled to file an appeal under Section 372

of Code of Criminal Procedure. He therefore seeks leave to

withdraw this application with liberty to file an appeal under

Section 372 of Cr.P.C. in the Sessions Court. Learned counsel

for the applicant submits that the applicant be granted benefit

of the period of pendency of this application for seeking

condonation of delay.

3.   In view of the legal principles settled in the decision of the

Hon’ble Apex Court, the applicant is granted leave to withdraw

this application with liberty to file an appeal under Section 372

of Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court.

4.   This application is filed on 19 th September 2018. Hence,

it is clarified that if an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. is

filed within eight weeks from today, the applicant shall be

entitled to seek benefit of the period of pendency of this

application for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal

before the Sessions Court.

5.   Learned advocate for the applicant is permitted to take

back certified copy of the impugned order for filing the appeal

in the Sessions Courts, on submitting a photocopy of the
                               2/3
                                              7-ALP-423-2018.doc



impugned order. Registry shall verify the photocopy and return

the certified copy to the learned advocate for the applicant.

6.    The Application is disposed of as withdrawn subject to

the aforesaid liberty.




                                            (GAURI GODSE, J.)




                               3/3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…