Disposed¶31

Swati Pattina Souharda Sahakari Niyamita Hosapete v. R Iqbal Basha S/O Late Raja Bakshi

Karnataka HC26 Nov 2025CRL.A/100038/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of complainant's appeal against acquittal; S. 378(4) CrPC; proviso to S. 372 CrPC; victim's right of appeal; Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 SCC Online SC 1320); S. 138 NI Act acquittal; transfer of appeal to Sessions Court; appearance on 13.01.2026; Karnataka High Court at Dharwad; Justice S. Rachaiah; CRL.A No. 100038 of 2023; CC No. 665/2018; judgment of acquittal dated 21.11.2022.

What did the court decide?

Appeal transferred to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court; parties directed to appear there on 13.01.2026 without further notice; Registry to transmit the entire appeal papers including the appeal memo; appellant's counsel given liberty to carry out amendment in the cause title; appeal disposed of for statistical purpose. ¶31

Swati Pattina Souharda Sahakari Niyamita Hosapete Vs R… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether an appeal under S. 378(4) CrPC by the complainant against an order of acquittal is maintainable before the High Court, or whether the complainant, being the victim, must file the appeal before the jurisdictional Sessions Court by invoking S. 372 CrPC.

¶29

Court's answer

In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Celestium Financial, the appeal by the complainant against the order of acquittal is not maintainable before the High Court; the complainant, being the victim, has to file the appeal before the Jurisdictional Sessions Court by invoking S. 372 CrPC.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Since the High Court has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits, the appeal is transferred to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court.

¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under S. 378(4) CrPC by the complainant (Swati Pattina Souharda Sahakari Niyamita, Hosapete) against the judgment dated 21.11.2022 of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete in CC No. 665/2018 acquitting the accused (R. Iqbal Basha) of the offence u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. Relying on Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 SCC Online SC 1320 (para 10), the Court held that a complainant who is a victim must prefer an appeal against acquittal before the jurisdictional Sessions Court under the proviso to S. 372 CrPC, and that an appeal under S. 378(4) CrPC is not maintainable before the High Court. Having no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits, the Court transferred it to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court, directed the parties to appear there on 13.01.2026 without further notice, directed the Registry to transmit the entire appeal papers including the appeal memo, allowed the appellant's counsel liberty to amend the cause title, and for statistical purposes disposed of the appeal.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16476 CRL.A No. 100038 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100038 OF 2023 (A-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SWATI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMITA, HOSAPETE, HOSAPETE- 583201. TQ. HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYNAGAR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SMT. KALPANA (ORIG. COMPLAINANT) …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

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

¶11

R. IQBAL BASHA S/O LATE RAJA BAKSHI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. MUSLIM ASSISTANT, URBAN DIVISION GESCOM, R/O. DAM ROAD, HOSAPETE, TQ. AND DIST. HOSAPETE- 583201. (ORIG. ACCUSED) …RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI. ANWAR BASHA B., ADVOCATE)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378(4) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 21.11.2022 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAPETE, CC NO. 665/2018 THEREBY ACQUITTING ACCUSED OFFENCE U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT BY ALLOWING THE TOP NOTED APPEAL.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16476 CRL.A No. 100038 of 2023

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶19

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

¶20

This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant

¶21

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

¶22

However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶23

Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.¹ , held in paragraph No.10 as under:

¶24

“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

¶25

1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:16476 CRL.A No. 100038 of 2023

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32