Smt. Bhagyalakshmi Vs Girish N — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

Smt. Bhagyalakshmi Vs Girish N — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of with directions: Registry to transfer the entire record including requisitioned trial court copies to the Principal District & Sessions Judge for assignment to the jurisdictional Appellate Court; transferee court to issue court notice to both parties and proceed in accordance with law; pending applications (including condonation of delay) to stand transferred; expeditious disposal requested; appellant permitted to amend the cause-title and provisions thereof; merits left open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant/complainant, being a victim of the offence under Section 138 NI Act, is entitled to maintain the appeal against acquittal before the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC (now proviso to Section 413 BNSS, 2023) instead of under Section 378(4) CrPC. +1 more

Court's answer

In light of Celestium Financial, the complainant under Section 138 NI Act is a victim entitled to appeal against the acquittal before the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC; if this Court proceeded to hear and decide the appeal, it would deprive the parties of an available forum for further challenge.

Ratio / Principle

The present appeal is transferred to the concerned appellate Court of Sessions, to be considered as an appeal under the proviso to Section 413 BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 372 CrPC) and numbered accordingly.

Key takeaways

This Court has made no observation on the merits of the case; all rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be agitated before the Court concerned.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal (complainant against acquittal) — S.138 NI Act conviction/acquittal appeals — Following Celestium Financial v. A Gnanasekaran etc. (2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1320), a complainant is a 'victim' entitled to prefer an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to S.372 CrPC (now proviso to S.413 BNSS, 2023) before the Sessions Court, irrespective of S.378(4) CrPC; an appeal already filed in the High Court under S.378(4) CrPC is directed to be transferred to the jurisdictional Appellate Court of Sessions and renumbered accordingly; similar course adopted by High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Delhi and by coordinate benches of this Court; no observation on merits; all rights and contentions left open.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:57106 CRL.A No. 1282 of 2016

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1282 OF 2016 (A-)

BETWEEN:

SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI W/O LATE DIWAKAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO. 483, 7TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 082.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. GIRIDHAR H.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

GIRISH N S/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO. 94, III MAIN, 7TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU - 560 097.

…RESPONDENT

Digitally signed by DHAKSHAYINI R Location: High Court of Karnataka

CRL.A FILED U/S 378(4) CRPC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.07.2016 PASSED BY THE XXII ACMM, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.19012/2014 -ACQUITTING THE

RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:57106 CRL.A No. 1282 of 2016

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant

being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CELESTIUM FINANCIAL v. A GNANASEKARAN ETC. reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1320, at paragraph 10 of the judgment, has observed as under:

" 10. As already noted, the proviso to Section 372 of 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 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 Cr.PC. "

In the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's recent clarification of the legal position, it is now evident that the appellant, being the complainant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is also entitled to file an

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:57106 CRL.A No. 1282 of 2016

HC-KAR

appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court before the Sessions Court, since he is considered to be a victim. If this Court were to proceed to hear and decide the appeal at this stage, it could deprive the parties of an available forum, i.e. this Court, for further challenge.

Similar view has been taken by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in CHARBEL INDIA V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE AP 2815; by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in MANORAMA KANKANE v. NARENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA rendered in Criminal Appeal No.5910 of 2025 decided on 03^rd July, 2025; and in the case of M/S. LATA KISAN SEWA KENDRA v. PRITAM SINGH reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE MP 4818; and in SMT. URMIT MADRAH v. SAMARPAN JAIN rendered Criminal Appeal No. 11872 of 2022 decided on 21.07.2025; the decision of High Court of Chattisgarh in NEELAM SAHU v. NARADNAGWANSHI rendered in ACQA No. 340 of 2018 decided on 16.07.2025; and in SMT. KIRTI KURIAN v. AJAY SINGH rendered in ACQA No. 198 of 2019 decided on 16.07.2025; the judgment of this Court in the case of SIDAGONDAPPA v. SHAFI AHAMAD rendered in CRL.A.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:57106 CRL.A No. 1282 of 2016

HC-KAR

No. 20021/2018 decided on 31.07.2025 and in SRI T.H. LENKAPPA v. SRI SANJAY AND ANOTHER rendered in Criminal Appeal No.146 of 2015 decided on 23.07.2025; the decision of High Court of Delhi in the case of D.K. ASSOCIATES v. SHANKAR AND ANOTHER rendered in Criminal Appeal No.694 of 2016 decided on 13.11.2025 and the decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/S. ANANYA ENTERPRISES v. SRI G.S. GOPALAKRISHNA rendered in Criminal Appeal No.100171 of 2016 decided on 24.11.2025. An overall assessment of the aforestated decisions reveals that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CELESTIUM FINANCIAL (supra) has been relied upon by this Court, as well as other High Courts across the country.

Considering the above, it is deemed fit that the present appeal be transferred to the concerned appellate Court of Sessions and be considered as an appeal under the proviso to Section 413 of BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 372 of Cr.PC) and numbered accordingly. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:57106 CRL.A No. 1282 of 2016

HC-KAR

O R D E R

i. Registry is directed to transfer the entire record of the case, including the requisitioned copies of the trial court Records, to the concerned Principal District & Sessions Judge, who may assign it to the concerned Appellate Court having the jurisdiction and for which purpose, it would be listed before the Principal District & Sessions Judge;

ii. The concerned transferee court is directed to issue Court notice to both the parties to appear before the concerned Court, and the concerned Court, thereafter, shall proceed with the case in accordance with law;

iii. In case there are applications pending for condonation of delay or any other pending applications, the same also be transferred to be considered by the learned Judge of transferee Court, in accordance with law;

iv. Considering the fact that the matter has been pending for considerable time, the Appellate Court is requested to make an endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible;

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:57106 CRL.A No. 1282 of 2016

HC-KAR

v. The appellant is permitted to carry out necessary amendment in the cause-title and also the provisions thereof;

vi. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation as to the merits of the case and all rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be agitated before the Court concerned.

In the light of the above observation and directions,

appeal stands disposed of.

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

KBM List No.: 3 Sl No.: 73