Sri Shamanath a R Vs Sri M Ramkoteswar Rao — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri Shamanath a R Vs Sri M Ramkoteswar Rao — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of by directing transfer of the entire record, including requisitioned trial court records, to the concerned Principal District & Sessions Judge for assignment to the jurisdictional Appellate Court; the transferee court to issue court notice to both parties and proceed in accordance with law; pending applications including condonation of delay to be transferred and considered by the transferee court; the Appellate Court requested to dispose of the matter expeditiously; appellant permitted to amend the cause-title and provisions thereof; no merits observed, rights and contentions left open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, being the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, may maintain his appeal against the acquittal before this Court under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., or whether, as a victim, he is entitled to pursue the appeal before the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. (now the proviso to Section 413 of BNSS, 2023). +1 more

Court's answer

In the light of the Supreme Court's clarification in Celestium Financial, it is evident that the appellant, being the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is entitled to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal before the Sessions Court, since he is considered to be a victim; proceeding to hear the appeal in this Court at this stage could deprive the parties of an available forum for further challenge.

Ratio / Principle

The present appeal is to be transferred to the concerned appellate Court of Sessions and considered as an appeal under the proviso to Section 413 of BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 372 of Cr.PC) and numbered accordingly; the Registry is directed to transfer the entire record, including requisitioned trial court records, to the concerned Principal District & Sessions Judge for assignment to the jurisdictional Appellate Court.

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.obiter¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Appeal against acquittal - Complaint by complainant/victim - Appeal filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against acquittal by XIX ACMM, Bangalore in C.C.No.10462/2014 - Following the Supreme Court's decision in Celestium Financial v. A Gnanasekaran (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320) that a 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 need not advert to sub-section (4) of Section 378 Cr.P.C., and concurring decisions of various High Courts - Held, the complainant being a victim is entitled to appeal before the Sessions Court - Appeal disposed of by directing transfer of the entire record to the concerned Principal District & Sessions Judge, to be considered as an appeal under the proviso to Section 413 of BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 372 of Cr.PC) and numbered accordingly - Transferee court to issue notice, consider pending applications including condonation of delay, and dispose of the matter expeditiously - Appellant permitted to amend cause-title - No merits observed; rights and contentions of parties left open.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:57864 CRL.A No. 1311 of 2017

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1311 OF 2017 (A)

BETWEEN:

SRI SHAMANATH A R

S/O SRI A S RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1, 3RD MAIN ROAD CHOWDESHARI NILAYA, HEBBAL, BENGALURU 560024

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. AJITH ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI M RAMKOTESWAR RAO S/O VEERARAJU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS CLASS-I CONTRACTOR

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N

Location: High Court of Karnataka

NEAR SAI MANDIR ADARSHA COLONY SINDANUR, RAICHUR 584128

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. MUDUKANAGOUDA R PATIL, ADVOCATE)

CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C BY THE ADV. FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ACQUITTAL OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.02.2017 PASSED BY THE XIX ACMM, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.10462/2014ACQUITTING THE

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:57864 CRL.A No. 1311 of 2017

HC-KAR

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

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

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:57864 CRL.A No. 1311 of 2017

HC-KAR

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 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

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:57864 CRL.A No. 1311 of 2017

HC-KAR

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. 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

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:57864 CRL.A No. 1311 of 2017

HC-KAR

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:

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;

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:57864 CRL.A No. 1311 of 2017

HC-KAR

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;

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.: 2 Sl No.: 116