Disposed¶125

Devidas Babasaheb Khatke v. Suresh Bhanudas Sangule

Bombay HC16 Oct 2025ALP/5/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 138 NI Act acquittal; leave to appeal by private party; Section 378(4) CrPC; proviso to Section 372 CrPC; victim/complainant appeal without special leave; Celestium Financial (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1320; transfer to District and Sessions Court; Registrar (Judicial) transfer; cheque dishonour complainant as victim; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; Sushil M. Ghodeswar J.; common order batch; 16 October 2025.

What did the court decide?

All the present proceedings transferred to the concerned District and Sessions Courts; Registrar (Judicial) directed to effect the transfer immediately; the assigning courts, after registering the matters, to issue notice to the parties and treat them as appeals under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC in accordance with law. ¶125

Devidas Babasaheb Khatke Vs Suresh Bhanudas Sangule — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶125

Issue for consideration

Whether a complainant/victim of a Section 138 NI Act offence may prefer an appeal against acquittal under Section 372 CrPC (proviso), as settled by the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial, instead of pursuing the Section 378(4) leave route. +1 more

¶114

Court's answer

Acting on the Supreme Court's decision in Celestium Financial, this Court directed that the concerned courts shall treat these matters, though filed as applications for leave under Section 378(4) CrPC, as appeals under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.

¶130

Ratio / Principle

Considering the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court in Celestium Financial, these matters are required to be transferred for their disposal to the respective concerned District and Sessions Courts.

¶123

Key takeaways

The Learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is to take immediate action to transfer the matters, and the courts to which they are assigned, after registering them, shall issue notice to the concerned parties and proceed further with the matters in accordance with law.ratio¶128

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Sushil M. Ghodeswar J., common order dated 16 October 2025 disposing of a batch of applications for leave to appeal by private parties under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against judgments and orders of acquittal passed by learned Judicial Magistrates, First Class, in cases punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Placing reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Celestium Financial Vs. Ganasekaran, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1320 - that the victim of an offence, including a complainant under Section 200 CrPC, may appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without seeking special leave under Section 378(4) - the Court ordered transfer of all the matters to the concerned District and Sessions Courts, with directions to the Registrar (Judicial) to effect the transfer immediately, and to the transferee courts, after registration, to issue notice to the parties and treat the matters as appeals under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.

¶1

85.24alp

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

909 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 85 OF 2024

¶5

RAMTARA TRADING CORPORATION THROUGH ITS PARTNER KALASH KULBHUSHAN AGRAWAL

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

YUVRAJ CONSTRUCTION THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR YUVRAJ SHARAD MULAY AND ANOTHER

¶8

Mr V. A. Bagdiya, Advocate for Applicant

¶9

AND

¶10

910 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 86 OF 2024

¶11

RAMTARA TRADING CORPORATION THROUGH ITS PARTNER KALASH KULBHUSHAN AGRAWAL

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

YUVRAJ CONSTRUCTION THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR YUVRAJ SHARAD MULAY AND ANOTHER

¶14

Mr V. A. Bagdiya, Advocate for Applicant

¶15

AND

¶16

927 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 223 OF 2018

¶17

DEVIDAS S/O DIGAMBARRAO JAMDADE

¶18

VERSUS

¶19

MAHAMATI D/O GAUTAMI HANKARE

¶20

Ms Smita R. Kasture, Advocate h/f Ms M. R. Jamdhade, Advocate for Applicant

¶21

Mr G. G. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent

AND

85.24alp

(2)

928 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 46 OF 2022

¶26

SACHIN DNYANDEO PAWAR

¶27

VERSUS

¶28

SHIRISH SAMBHAJI SHINDE

¶29

Mr Z. H. Farooqui, Advocate h/f Mr N. V. Gaware, Advocate for Applicant

¶30

AND

¶31

929 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 59 OF 2022

¶32

VIJAY SAMBHAJI MUNGASE VERSUS

¶33

NANASAHEB MANOHAR VARUKSHE

¶34

Mr A. T. Kanawade and Ms S. A. Kanawade, Advocates for Applicant Mr G. P. Darandale, Advocate for Respondent

¶35

AND 930 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 73 OF 2022

¶36

RATAN BHANUDAS RANKHAMB

¶37

VERSUS

¶38

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶39

Mr V. C. Solshe, Advocate for Applicant Mr D. B. Bhange, APP for Respondent No.1/State Mr Y. P. Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent No.2

¶40

AND

¶41

931 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 83 OF 2022

¶42

SANDEEP KADUBA DIVATE AND ANOTHER VERSUS

¶43

SHRI NARAYAN PRO. OF SHRI KRUSHNA MOBILES

¶44

Mr S. B. Kadu, Advocate for Applicants

85.24alp

(3)

AND

932 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 86 OF 2022

¶49

SHANKAR GOVIND BAMANWAD

¶50

VERSUS

¶51

GOVIND SONAJI WAD

¶52

Mr Vaibhav Dhage, Advocate for Applicant Mr P. B. Vikhe, Advocate for Respondent

¶53

AND

¶54

933 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 87 OF 2022

¶55

M/S. APURVA TRADERS, JINTUR ROAD, PARBHANI THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR GOVIND LAXMANRAO MANE

¶56

VERSUS

¶57

KALYAN RAMRAO SABLE

¶58

Mr V. P. Kadam, Advocate for Applicant Mr P. N. Kalani, APP for Respondent

¶59

AND

¶60

934 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 90 OF 2022

¶61

SAVITA RAJENDRA BIRAJDAR AND ANOTHER

¶62

VERSUS

¶63

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶64

Mr V. C. Solshe, Advocate for Applicants Mr G. O. Wattamwar, APP for Respondent No.1/State Mr H. V. Tungar, Advocate for Respondent No.2

¶65

AND

¶66

935 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 95 OF 2022

¶67

KAILAS RAJARAM PATIL

¶68

VERSUS

¶69

NARAYAN PUNDLIK PATIL AND ANOTHER

¶70

Mr S. B. Jadhav, APP for Respondent/State

¶71

85.24alp

¶72

(4)

¶73

AND 936 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 105 OF 2022 937 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 106 OF 2022 938 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 107 OF 2022 939 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 108 OF 2022 940 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 109 OF 2022 941 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 110 OF 2022 942 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 111 OF 2022 943 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 112 OF 2022 944 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 113 OF 2022

¶74

KAMALKUMAR MADANLAL JAIN (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, RUPESH KAMALKUMAR JAIN

¶75

VERSUS

¶76

MANOJ DWARKADAS AGRAWAL

¶77

Ms Shital Pujari, Advocate h/f Mr Y. H. Jadhav, Advocate for respective Applicant Mr B. R. Kedar, Advocate for respective Respondent

¶78

AND

¶79

945 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 117 OF 2022

¶80

SHREE NARYAN MAHILA NAGARI SAHKARI PAT SANSTHA LTD. PARBHANI THROUGH BALAJI GANGADHAR CHAVAN VERSUS

¶81

JITENDRA PRABHAKAR DAHIWAL

¶82

Mr C. R. Thorat, Advocate for Applicant

¶83

Mr R. M. Gaikwad, Advocate h/f Mr P. M. Gaikwad, Advocate for Respondent

85.24alp

(5)

AND

946 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 4 OF 2024

¶88

ASHOK SONAJI HEMBADE

¶89

VERSUS

¶90

MADAN TULSHIRAM HEMBADE AND ANOTHER

¶91

Mr H. A. Shinde, Advocate h/f Mr V. R. Dhorde, Advocate for Applicant Mr R. N. Chavan, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Mr D. B. Bhange, APP for Respondent No.2/State

¶92

AND

¶93

947 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 5 OF 2024

¶94

DEVIDAS BABASAHEB KHATKE

¶95

VERSUS

¶96

SURESH BHANUDAS SANGULE

¶97

AND

¶98

948 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 9 OF 2024

¶99

YOGESHWAR NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANTHA LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED PERSON SANDIP VASANT BAVISKAR

VERSUS

SANJAY VASANT DEV

AND

949 APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 10 OF 2024

¶104

RATAN BAJIRAO DAGLE

¶105

VERSUS

¶106

RAJENDRA NARAYAN HARDE

¶107

85.24alp

¶108

(6)

¶109

CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

¶110

DATE : 16 OCTOBER 2025

¶111

P. C. :

¶112

Since common issue is involved in these matters, therefore, they are being decided by this common order.

¶113

By these applications under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the respective applicants/appellants pray for leave to file an appeal against judgment and order of acquittal passed by respective learned Judicial Magistrates, First Class, in respective cases for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶114

Insofar as the issue in respect of preferring an appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the complainant/victim is concerned, the same was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of Celestium Financial Vs. Ganasekaran Etc. [(2025) SCC OnLine SC 1320] , wherein, it has been held as under :-

¶115

“9. In the circumstances, we find that Section 138 of the Act being in the nature of a penal provision by a deeming fiction against an accused who is said to have committed an offence under the said provision, if acquitted, can be proceeded against

¶116

85.24alp

¶117

(7)

¶118

by a victim of the said offence, namely, the person who is entitled to the proceeds of a cheque which has been dishonoured, in terms of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, as a victim. As already noted, a victim of an offence could also be a complainant. In such a case, an appeal can be preferred either under the proviso to Section 372 or under Section 378 by such a victim. In the absence of the proviso to Section 372, a victim of an offence could not have filed an appeal as such, unless he was also a complainant, in which event he could maintain an appeal if special leave to appeal had been granted by the High Court and if no such special leave was granted then his appeal would not be maintainable at all. On the other hand, if the victim of an offence, who may or may not be the complainant, proceeds under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, then in our view, such a victim need not seek special leave to appeal from the High Court. In other words, the victim of an offence would have the right to prefer an appeal, inter alia, against an order of acquittal in terms of the proviso to Section 372 without seeking any special leave to appeal from the High Court only on the grounds mentioned therein. A person who is a complainant under Section 200 of the CrPC who complains about the offence committed by a person who is charged as an accused under Section 138 of the Act, thus has the right to prefer an appeal as a victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC.

¶119

10. As already noted, the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC was inserted in the statute book only with effect from 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such insertion must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the victim of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the victim of an offence is a complainant, he can still proceed under the proviso to Section 372 and need not advert to sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the CrPC."

¶120

85.24alp

¶121

(8)

¶122

Considering the above position of law as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, learned advocates appearing in the matter for the applicants/appellants submitted that under proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the victim has a right to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting accused for lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, such appeal shall lie to the Court to which the appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction. In view of said proviso, learned Advocates pray that these matters be transferred to the concerned District and Sessions Courts for their disposal in accordance with law.

¶123

In that view of the matter and considering the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court in Celestium Financial (supra) , these matters are required to be transferred for their disposal to the respective concerned District Courts. Hence, the following order :-

¶124

ORDER

¶125

(1) The present proceedings be transferred to the concerned District and Sessions Courts.

¶126

85.24alp

¶127

(9)

¶128

(2) Learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to take further necessary action for transferring these matters to the concerned District and Sessions Courts, immediately.

¶129

(3) Learned Courts to whom these matters would be assigned, after registering them, shall issue notice to the concerned parties, and thereafter, proceed further with the matters in accordance with law.

¶130

(4) The concerned Courts shall treat these matters as appeals under proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as per the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court in Celestium Financial (supra).

¶131

[SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]

¶132

sjk

Parties & counsel

AI extract

applicant
Ramtara Trading Corporation through its partner Kalash Kulbhushan Agrawal¶5
V. A. Bagdiya
respondent
Yuvraj Construction through its proprietor Yuvraj Sharad Mulay and another¶7
applicant
Devidas s/o Digambarrao Jamdade¶17
Smita R. Kasture, M. R. Jamdhade
respondent
Mahamati d/o Gautami Hankare¶19
G. G. Suryawanshi
applicant
Sachin Dnyandeo Pawar¶26
Z. H. Farooqui, N. V. Gaware
respondent
Shirish Sambhaji Shinde¶28
applicant
Vijay Sambhaji Mungase¶32
A. T. Kanawade, S. A. Kanawade
respondent
Nanasaheb Manohar Varukshe¶32
G. P. Darandale
applicant
Ratan Bhanudas Rankhamb¶36
V. C. Solshe
respondent
The State of Maharashtra and another¶38
D. B. Bhange, Y. P. Jadhav
applicant
Sandeep Kaduba Divate and another¶42
S. B. Kadu
respondent
Shri Narayan Pro. of Shri Krushna Mobiles¶43
applicant
Shankar Govind Bamanwad¶49
Vaibhav Dhage
respondent
Govind Sonaji Wad¶51
P. B. Vikhe
applicant
M/S. Apurva Traders, Jintur Road, Parbhani through its proprietor Govind Laxmanrao Mane¶55
V. P. Kadam
respondent
Kalyan Ramrao Sable¶57
P. N. Kalani
applicant
Savita Rajendra Birajdar and another¶61
V. C. Solshe
respondent
The State of Maharashtra and another¶63
G. O. Wattamwar, H. V. Tungar
applicant
Kailas Rajaram Patil¶67
respondent
Narayan Pundlik Patil and another¶69
S. B. Jadhav
applicant
Kamalkumar Madanlal Jain (deceased) through legal representative, Rupesh Kamalkumar Jain¶74
Shital Pujari, Y. H. Jadhav
respondent
Manoj Dwarkadas Agrawal¶76
B. R. Kedar
applicant
Shree Naryan Mahila Nagari Sahkari Pat Sanstha Ltd. Parbhani through Balaji Gangadhar Chavan¶80
C. R. Thorat
respondent
Jitendra Prabhakar Dahiwals¶81
R. M. Gaikwad, P. M. Gaikwad
applicant
Ashok Sonaji Hembade¶88
H. A. Shinde, V. R. Dhorde
respondent
Madan Tulshiram Hembade and another¶90
R. N. Chavan, D. B. Bhange
applicant
Devidas Babasaheb Khatke¶94
respondent
Suresh Bhanudas Sangule¶96
applicant
Yogeshwar Nagari Sahakari Patsantha Ltd through its authorised person Sandip Vasant Baviskar¶99
respondent
Sanjay Vasant Dev¶101
applicant
Ratan Bajirao Dagle¶104
respondent
Rajendra Narayan Harde¶106

Coram

AI extract

Sushil M. Ghodeswarauthor¶109

Devidas Babasaheb Khatke v. Suresh Bhanudas Sangule

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devidas Babasaheb Khatke v. Suresh Bhanudas Sangule

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Salimshah Haji Shakurshan L.Rs. Sayarabai Salimshah and Ors. Vs Syd Javdali Syd Anwarali and Anr.

Aurangabad District Co-Operative Milk Pro. Uni. Ltd. through, Dr. Pradeep Bhaurao Patil Vs Padmakar Jagannath Patil

Shivaji Ganpat Badar Vs Nagesh Trimbak Gadhave

Ashok Sonaji Hembade Vs Madan Tulshiram Hembade and Another

Yogeshwar Nagari Sahakari Patsantha Ltd. through Its Authorised Person Sandip Vasant Baviskar Vs Sanjay Vasant Dev

Ratan Bajirao Dagle Vs Rajendra Narayan Harde