“Victim” Under Section 372 CrPC Requires Loss/Injury Caused by the Charged Offence: Co-owner Lacks Locus to Appeal Acquittal in Police-Report Case

1. Introduction

In SMT SUDHA SHARMA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. (Delhi High Court, decided on 06.01.2026), the Court addressed a recurring post-2009 criminal procedure question: who may appeal an acquittal when the prosecution is based on a police report and the State does not appeal?

The dispute arose from a property (C-131, Phase-II, Mayapuri, New Delhi) allotted to a partnership firm with multiple co-sharers. Respondent No. 2 (M.L. Sharma) claimed rights on the basis of a GPA dated 20.07.1994 allegedly executed by Dr. Chanderkant. During inquiry, Dr. Chanderkant accepted his signatures but asserted that certain lines—purporting to convey “two rooms located with top floor...” etc.—were inserted later without consent, leading to registration of FIR No. 566/2006 and charges under Sections 420/468/471/511 IPC.

After Respondent No. 2 was acquitted by the CMM on 24.11.2018, the State did not appeal. The petitioner, Smt. Sudha Sharma (a co-sharer/purchaser of another co-sharer’s share), filed a criminal appeal claiming she was a “victim” entitled to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The Sessions Court dismissed her appeal as non-maintainable. The High Court, in revision, was confined to the question: whether she qualified as a “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the Sessions Court’s finding that the petitioner’s appeal against acquittal was not maintainable. The Court held:

  • In a police-report case, an appeal against acquittal ordinarily lies under Section 378 CrPC at the instance of the State.
  • The proviso to Section 372 CrPC creates a limited right of appeal only for a “victim”, as defined in Section 2(wa) CrPC.
  • To be a “victim,” a person must show (i) loss or injury, and (ii) that such loss/injury was caused by the act/omission for which the accused was charged.
  • Here, the charges related to alleged forgery/cheating vis-à-vis Dr. Chanderkant. The petitioner was not the person allegedly deceived, impersonated, or cheated for the charged offences.
  • No qualifying “injury” to the petitioner was established: the property/possession issues were already pending in civil proceedings, and no detriment to her rights was shown to have occurred by the charged acts.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The judgment does not cite any prior reported decisions by name. Instead, it proceeds primarily through:

  • Statutory interpretation of Sections 372, 378 and 2(wa) CrPC, and
  • General principles governing revisional jurisdiction (stated to be “well settled,” without case citations).

The absence of cited precedents is itself notable: the Court treats the issue as resolvable on the text and structure of the CrPC, particularly the relationship between the State’s appellate role in police-report prosecutions (Section 378) and the limited, rights-based “victim appeal” provision (Section 372 proviso read with Section 2(wa)).

3.2 Legal Reasoning

A. The appellate scheme: Section 378 as the default route for acquittal appeals in police-report cases

The Court reaffirmed that Section 378 CrPC is the specific provision governing appeals against acquittal. Where the case is instituted upon a police report (FIR → charge-sheet), the right to appeal against acquittal is generally exercised by the State. The petitioner was neither the State nor a “complainant” in a complaint-case prosecution; she was at most a witness.

B. The narrow gateway: proviso to Section 372 CrPC depends entirely on “victim” status

The petitioner’s only possible locus was the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, which grants a “victim” a right to appeal against acquittal (and certain other outcomes). The Court therefore applied the definition in Section 2(wa) CrPC.

C. Two cumulative requirements under Section 2(wa) CrPC

The Court crystallised Section 2(wa) into two essential elements:

  1. Loss or injury must be shown; and
  2. That loss/injury must be caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged.

Crucially, the Court emphasised the second limb: the relevant act/omission is not any grievance in the background, but the very act/omission that constitutes the charged offences.

D. Why the petitioner was not a “victim” of the charged offences

The accused was charged for cheating/attempt and for using/creating a forged document in relation to a GPA said to have been manipulated to reflect Dr. Chanderkant’s consent regarding specific portions of property. The Court reasoned:

  • The alleged deception and “intent to cheat,” if proved, would be qua Dr. Chanderkant, because the disputed insertion purported to represent his consent/conveyance.
  • The charges were not framed for cheating the petitioner, nor did they relate to impersonation of the petitioner or forging her signature/authority.
  • The case was not one of trespass, wrongful restraint, or “usurpation of property” as charged offences; it was framed around document-based cheating/forgery linked to Dr. Chanderkant.

On “injury,” the Court used Section 44 IPC (definition of injury) to examine whether harm to body, mind, reputation, or property was shown. It found:

  • No bodily or reputational harm was claimed.
  • No monetary loss was established.
  • As to property/mind: the civil dispute over possession/title was pending, and the alleged forged claim did not translate into a demonstrated detriment caused by the charged acts—indeed, the police detected the alleged forgery and prosecuted it.

Therefore, the petitioner failed both: she was not the person targeted by the charged deception, and she did not demonstrate qualifying loss/injury caused by the charged conduct.

3.3 Impact

This decision clarifies and tightens the boundary of “victim appeals” in police-report cases:

  • Co-owners/co-sharers in collateral property disputes cannot automatically claim “victim” status in a forgery/cheating case if the charged deception is directed at another person.
  • Courts will focus on the charged offence’s immediate victimology—i.e., who was deceived/harmed by the act/omission “for which the accused has been charged,” not who feels affected by the broader dispute.
  • The ruling discourages using criminal appeals against acquittal as an indirect strategy to advance pending civil possession/title contests, particularly where criminal charges are narrowly framed around document manipulation affecting someone else’s consent.
  • Institutionally, it preserves the CrPC architecture: State primacy in acquittal appeals for police-report prosecutions, with the Section 372 proviso operating as a limited exception rather than a general opening for third-party participation.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Police-report case vs complaint case: A police-report case begins with an FIR and ends in a charge-sheet filed by police. A complaint case begins with a private complaint before a Magistrate. This distinction matters because Section 378 gives different appellate routes in acquittals.
  • Section 372 proviso (victim’s appeal): It allows a “victim” to appeal acquittal (and some other outcomes). But only a person fitting Section 2(wa)’s definition can use it.
  • “Victim” (Section 2(wa) CrPC): Not everyone affected by events is a “victim.” One must show (i) loss/injury and (ii) that it was caused by the specific act/omission that forms the charged offence.
  • Revisional jurisdiction: A revision is not a second appeal. The High Court intervenes sparingly, mainly to correct jurisdictional errors, illegality, or glaring perversity.
  • GPA (General Power of Attorney) in property disputes: A GPA authorises acts on behalf of another; when alleged to be altered/forged, criminal liability may centre on the person whose authority/consent is fabricated, even if the dispute has civil consequences among multiple stakeholders.

5. Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s central holding is that “victim” status for appealing an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC is strictly tied to the charged offence: the appellant must show loss/injury caused by the act/omission for which the accused was charged. Where the alleged forgery/cheating is framed as deception of a particular person (here, Dr. Chanderkant), a co-sharer who is only incidentally impacted within a broader civil property dispute does not acquire a right to appeal merely by asserting hardship or litigation burden. The decision reinforces the structured appellate scheme of the CrPC and limits expansion of victim appeals to cases where the appellant is genuinely the legally cognisable victim of the charged crime.