Case Title: M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.: 137-139/2025
Date of Hearing: 08th April 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Key Proceedings and Orders

1. Nature of Petitions:
   Special Leave Petitions (Criminal) filed by Celestium Financial challenging the Madras High Court's orders dated 12-06-2024 in CRLOP Nos. 929/2024, 931/2024, and 1034/2024 (likely criminal original petitions related to cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act).

2. Interlocutory Applications (IAs):
   IA No. 296288/2024: Exemption from filing official translation.
   IA No. 296291/2024: Permission to file additional documents/facts/annexures.

3. Representation:
   Petitioner (Celestium Financial):
   Mr. Danish Zubair Khan, AOR
   Respondents (A. Gnanasekaran Etc.):
   Mr. G. Sivabalamurugan, AOR
   Team of advocates

4. Court’s Decision:
   Leave granted (SLPs converted into criminal appeals).
   Criminal appeals allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment (details not provided in the excerpt).
   Pending applications disposed of.

Judgment Research Format

Case Citation: M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804 (Supreme Court of India).

Background:

• The petitioner (financial entity) challenged Madras High Court's orders in cheque dishonour cases, likely involving acquittal or procedural issues. The case underscores victim's right to appeal under Section 372 CrPC in financial disputes.

Legal Issues:

1. Scope of Section 372 CrPC: Whether a financial institution (as a victim) has the right to appeal against acquittal in cheque bounce cases.

2. Merits of High Court's Orders: Propriety of the impugned orders in light of evidence and legal provisions.

Court’s Observations (Inferred):

• Recognized Celestium Financial's locus standi as a victim to appeal under Section 372 CrPC.

• Found reversible errors in the High Court's orders, warranting interference (as appeals were allowed).

Outcome:

• SLPs converted into criminal appeals and allowed, setting aside the High Court's orders.

• Precedent set for financial institutions' rights in cheque dishonour cases.

Significance:

• Clarifies the victim status of financial entities in negotiable instrument cases.

• Reinforces strict liability under Section 138 of the NI Act.

Conclusion:
The judgment (though not detailed in the excerpt) likely strengthens the legal framework for creditor rights in cheque bounce cases, ensuring accountability under commercial laws.