Disposed¶32

Venkatesh J Habib v. Shree Selection

Karnataka HC25 Nov 2025CRL.A/100030/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of complainant's appeal against acquittal; S.138 Negotiable Instruments Act; S.378(4) CrPC vs proviso to S.372 CrPC; victim-complainant; Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320); transfer to Sessions Court; Hubballi; Dharwad Bench, Karnataka High Court; CRL.A No. 100030 of 2020; acquittal dated 30.09.2019; appearance date 13.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Appeal held not maintainable before the High Court and transferred to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court; parties directed to appear before the Sessions Court on 13.01.2026 without further notice; Registry to transmit the entire appeal papers including the appeal memo; appellant's counsel granted liberty to amend the cause title and provisions thereof; appeal recorded as disposed of for statistical purposes. ¶32

Venkatesh J Habib Vs Shree Selection — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether an appeal by the complainant (as victim) against an order of acquittal in a Section 138 NI Act case is maintainable before the High Court under Section 378(4) CrPC, or whether such an appeal lies only before the jurisdictional Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.

¶16

Court's answer

Applying Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, a complainant who is the victim of the offence must file an appeal against an order of acquittal before the jurisdictional Sessions Court by invoking Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, rather than under sub-section (4) of Section 378.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The present appeal by the complainant against the order of acquittal is not maintainable before the High Court; the Court has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits and therefore transfers it to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court.

¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal (S.378(4) CrPC) by complainant against acquittal in a Section 138 NI Act case (C.C.No.3152/2018, IV Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Hubballi) held NOT MAINTAINABLE before the High Court: following Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320), a victim-complainant must prefer the appeal against acquittal before the jurisdictional Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. Appeal transferred to the Sessions Court; parties to appear on 13.01.2026; Registry to transmit appeal papers; liberty to amend cause title; appeal disposed of for statistical purposes (S. Rachaiah, J.; HC-Karnataka, Dharwad, 25.11.2025).

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16353 CRL.A No. 100030 of 2020

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100030 OF 2020 (A-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

VENKATESH J HABIB, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: KAMARIPETH, HUBBALLI- 580023.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. S.S. NIRANJAN, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SHREE SELECTIONS, PROPRIETOR NAVEEN ARUN PAWAR, SHOP NO.2 & 3, SAVANUR COMPLEX, NEAR KVG BANK, AHINSA CIRCLE, OLD HUBLI, HUBBALLI- 580024.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. SANTOSH D. NARAGUND, ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378(4) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE REOCRDS IN C.C.NO.3152/2018 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT HUBBALLI AND ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 30.09.2019 IN C.C.NO.3152/2018 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT HUBBALLI AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶17

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16353 CRL.A No. 100030 of 2020

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH)

¶23

This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant

¶24

being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.

¶25

However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.¹ , held in paragraph No.10 as under:

¶26

“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

¶27

1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:16353 CRL.A No. 100030 of 2020

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

to sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the Cr.PC.”

¶31

On careful reading of the judgment of the Apex Court supra, it is evident that, the complainant being victim has to file an appeal against the order of acquittal before the Jurisdictional Sessions Court by invoking Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶32

In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, in Celestial supra, the appeal by the complainant against the order of acquittal is not maintainable before this Court. Since this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merit, the appeal is transferred to jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court.

¶33

The parties shall appear before the jurisdictional Appellate Court / Sessions Court on 13.01.2026 , without further notice of the concerned Court.

¶34