Manjeet S/O Appu Desai Vs Sri Ram Sinnappa Hebbalkar — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

Manjeet S/O Appu Desai Vs Sri Ram Sinnappa Hebbalkar — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal held not maintainable before the High Court and transferred to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court; parties directed to appear before that Court on 13.01.2026 without further notice; Registry to transmit entire appeal papers including the appeal memo; appellant's counsel given liberty to amend the cause title and provisions thereof; appeal disposed of for statistical purposes. Merits of the acquittal under Section 138 NI Act left undecided.

Issue for consideration

Whether the complainant's appeal against acquittal, filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., is maintainable before the High Court, in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Celestium Financial that a victim-complainant may proceed under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court. +1 more

Court's answer

On a careful reading of Celestium Financial, the complainant, being the 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.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Celestium Financial, the complainant's appeal against the order of acquittal is not maintainable before the High Court; since the Court has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits, it is transferred to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Maintainability of complainant's appeal against acquittal — Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. versus proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. — Criminal Appeal (CRL.A No. 100067 of 2023) filed by the complainant before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad, against his acquittal under Section 138 of the NI Act by JMFC V, Belagavi in CC No. 487/2019 (order dated 09.12.2022). Relying on Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 SCC Online SC 1320), wherein the Supreme Court held (para 10) that the victim of an offence may prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. irrespective of whether he is a complainant, and that even a victim who is a complainant need not advert to sub-section (4) of Section 378, the Court held that the complainant, being the victim, must file the appeal against acquittal before the jurisdictional Sessions Court by invoking Section 372 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the appeal was held not maintainable before the High Court; as the Court had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits, it was transferred to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court, with parties directed to appear on 13.01.2026, the Registry to transmit the entire appeal papers, and liberty granted to amend the cause title. The appeal stands disposed of for statistical purposes; the correctness of the acquittal was not adjudicated on merits.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16358 CRL.A No. 100067 of 2023

HC-KAR

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

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100067 OF 2023 (A-)

BETWEEN:

SRI. MANJEET S/O APPU DESAI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, RAMNAGAR, SUPA ROAD, TAL: JOIDA, DIST: KARWAR- 581453. (BY SRI. VISHWANATH V. BADIGER, ADVOCATE)

…APPELLANT

AND:

SRI. RAM SINNAPPA HEBBALKAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO. 280/CCB, 30, OPP. SHIVAJI GARDEN, SANTA SENA ROAD, BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI- 590016.

…RESPONDENT

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

(BY SRI. RAM P. GHORPADE, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378 (4) CR.P.C., IS SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE JMFC V, BELAGAVI, IN CC NO. 487/2019 BY ITS ORDER DATED 09.12.2022 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL BY CONVICTING THE ACCUSED /RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 138 OF NI ACT.

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

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16358 CRL.A No. 100067 of 2023

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant

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

However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

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

“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

1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:16358 CRL.A No. 100067 of 2023

HC-KAR

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

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.

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.

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

The Registry shall transmit entire appeal papers including appeal memo to the jurisdictional Sessions Court.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16358 CRL.A No. 100067 of 2023

4 -

HC-KAR

The learned counsel for the appellant shall have

the liberty to carry out the amendment in the cause title

and also the provisions thereof.

For statistical purpose, this appeal stands

disposed off.

Ordered accordingly.

SD/(S.RACHAIAH) JUDGE

PJ List No.: 3 Sl No.: 47