In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has held that a complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) does not fall within the definition of a “victim” under Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
A Key Distinction
The court’s decision highlights the importance of distinguishing between a “complainant” and a “victim” in criminal proceedings. While a complainant is the person who files a complaint, a victim is the person who has suffered harm or loss as a result of the alleged crime.
The Case
The ruling came in a case where a petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act against a respondent for dishonour of a cheque. The respondent had challenged the maintainability of the complaint, arguing that the petitioner did not fall within the definition of a “victim” under the CrPC.
The Verdict
The Kerala High Court upheld the respondent’s argument, ruling that a complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act does not come within the ambit of the term “victim” under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC. The court held that the definition of “victim” under the CrPC is limited to persons who have suffered harm or loss as a result of the alleged crime, and does not include complainants who may have suffered only financial loss.
Implications
The court’s ruling has significant implications for cheque bounce cases in India. It clarifies that complainants in such cases cannot be considered “victims” under the CrPC, and therefore may not be entitled to the same rights and protections as victims of other crimes.
Legal Expert Weighs In
“The Kerala High Court’s ruling is a welcome clarification of the law,” said Advocate Smitha Jain, a criminal law expert. “It highlights the importance of precise language in criminal proceedings and ensures that the rights of complainants and victims are protected.”
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Kerala High Court’s landmark judgement provides a crucial distinction between complainants and victims in cheque bounce cases. The ruling has far-reaching implications for criminal proceedings in India and underscores the importance of precise language in the legal system.