The Delhi High Court on September 2 upheld the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the corresponding proviso to Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), holding that a victim has an independent and unconditional right to appeal against an acquittal.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia rejected a challenge to the statutory scheme, holding that the victim's right of appeal cannot be equated with the right available to the State or a complainant.

The judgment in the matter was reserved on August 21.

Challenge to Victim's Right to Appeal

The petitioner had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the proviso to Section 372 CrPC and Section 413 BNSS.

The principal challenge was to the validity of the provision which gives a victim a right to appeal against an order of acquittal, a conviction for a lesser offence, or an order imposing inadequate compensation.

The petitioner alternatively sought a declaration that the proviso should apply only to privately instituted complaint cases and not to cases arising out of police investigations and FIRs. The issue arose after the petitioner was acquitted by the Trial Court in a case under Section 509 IPC.

The FIR was registered on March 11, 2016. A chargesheet was subsequently filed, cognizance was taken and charge was framed against the petitioner. The Trial Court ultimately acquitted him on October 16, 2024.

The victim/complainant thereafter preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.

The petitioner challenged the maintainability of that appeal, contending that an appeal against acquittal in a police case was governed by Section 378 CrPC and could not be maintained by the victim without the statutory requirement of leave.

Petitioner argued that Victim should also require leave

The petitioner argued that the statutory scheme resulted in unequal treatment because while an appeal against acquittal by the State was subject to the requirements under Section 378 CrPC, a victim could challenge the acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 without obtaining leave.

It was also argued that such an unrestricted right could expose an accused to repeated or vexatious appellate proceedings. The petitioner therefore sought to read the requirement of leave into the victim's right of appeal.

The High Court, however, rejected the arguments of the petitioner.

'Absolutely Fallacious': Delhi HC

The Bench described the petitioner's argument that the statutory scheme was discriminatory as "absolutely fallacious." The Court relied substantially upon the Supreme Court's judgment in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran 2025.

The High Court noted that the Supreme Court had clearly distinguished between the right of appeal available to the State, complainant and victim.

According to the Supreme Court's interpretation, the limitations and statutory requirements governing an appeal by the State or complainant cannot simply be imported into the victim's independent right of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.

The High Court further relied upon the Supreme Court's observation that a victim of crime must have an absolute right to prefer an appeal, which cannot be made subject to a condition precedent.

Victim's Right is independent of State's Appeal

Importantly, the State's appeal against acquittal is governed by Section 378 CrPC, which contains specific procedural requirements, including the requirement of leave in the circumstances contemplated by the provision.

The victim's appeal, on the other hand, flows independently from the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.

The High Court held that the restrictions applicable to one category of appeal cannot automatically be imposed upon another category merely because both concern a challenge to an acquittal.

The Bench also relied upon Khem Singh v. State of Uttarakhand 2025, in which the Supreme Court reiterated the independent nature of the victim's right of appeal under the proviso to Section 372.

Right not confined to private Complaint cases

The petitioner had alternatively argued that the victim's right under the proviso should be confined to cases instituted through private complaints. The High Court rejected this contention as well.

It held that the statutory language does not restrict the victim's right of appeal to private complaints. There was therefore no basis for reading such a limitation into the provision.

The Court essentially held that doing so would amount to adding a restriction to the statute which the legislature itself had not prescribed.

Supreme Court's majority view in Mallikarjun Kodagali

The High Court also considered the Supreme Court's decision in Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka. The petitioner had relied upon observations contained in paragraph 96 of that judgment.

The Delhi High Court, however, pointed out that the portion relied upon represented the minority view and not the majority judgment.

The majority had recognised the victim's right to appeal against an acquittal and held that the proviso to Section 372 should receive a realistic, liberal, progressive and beneficial interpretation.

The Delhi High Court therefore found no basis to restrict the statutory right in the manner suggested by the petitioner.

Constitutional challenge dismissed

Having considered the constitutional and statutory challenges, the Bench held that there was no merit in the challenge to the validity of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC/Section 413 BNSS.

The Court also found no illegality in the Sessions Court's order dated April 6, 2026, by which the petitioner's objection to the maintainability of the victim's appeal had been rejected.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, along with the pending applications. There was no order as to costs.

Case Title : SHIVDHAR UPADHYAY v UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

Tags: