Nataraja H B Vs v B Mahadeva — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

Nataraja H B Vs v B Mahadeva — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of by transfer: Registry to transfer the entire record (including requisitioned trial-court copies) to the concerned Principal District & Sessions Judge, who may assign it to the jurisdictional Appellate Court; the appeal to be considered and numbered as one under the proviso to S.413 BNSS 2023 (formerly S.372 CrPC); transferee court to issue Court notice to both parties and proceed per law; pending applications (including condonation of delay) to be transferred; expeditious disposal requested; appellant permitted to amend the cause-title and provisions thereof; no observation on merits, all rights and contentions left open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, who filed this appeal under S.378(4) Cr.P.C as the complainant in a S.138 N.I. Act case, is a 'victim' entitled to appeal against the acquittal before the Sessions Court under the proviso to S.372 CrPC (now the proviso to S.413 BNSS 2023), rather than pursuing the S.378(4) route before the High Court. +1 more

Court's answer

Because hearing and deciding the appeal at this stage in the High Court would deprive the parties of an available forum, i.e. this Court, for further challenge, the proper course is diversion to the Sessions-level appellate court.

Ratio / Principle

Following the Supreme Court's clarification in Celestium Financial (supra), the appellant, being the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is considered to be a victim and is entitled to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal before the Sessions Court (under the proviso to S.372 CrPC / S.413 BNSS 2023), notwithstanding that the appeal was lodged under S.378(4) Cr.P.C.

Key takeaways

The present appeal is to be transferred to the concerned appellate Court of Sessions and considered and numbered as an appeal under the proviso to Section 413 of BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 372 of Cr.PC).ratio¶¶38
The 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¶¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal (CRL.A No. 1452 of 2018 (A-)) filed under S.378(4) Cr.P.C by the complainant Nataraja H B against the acquittal (judgment dated 05.06.2018, Civil Judge & JMFC, Alur, C.C.No.594/2015) of accused V B Mahadeva for the offence under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Relying on the Supreme Court's clarification in Celestium Financial v. A Gnanasekaran (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320) — that a victim-complainant may appeal against acquittal under the proviso to S.372 CrPC without using S.378(4) CrPC — and noting parallel decisions of the Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Delhi High Courts and the Karnataka High Court, Justice G Basavaraja held that the complainant under S.138 NI Act is a 'victim' entitled to appeal before the Sessions Court. Since deciding the appeal in the High Court would deprive the parties of that Court as a further available forum, the appeal was transferred to the concerned appellate Court of Sessions, to be considered and numbered as an appeal under the proviso to Section 413 of BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 372 of Cr.PC); records to move via the Principal District & Sessions Judge, notices to issue, pending applications (incl. condonation of delay) to travel with the case, expeditious disposal urged, cause-title amendment permitted, and no observation made on merits. Appeal disposed of.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:57627 CRL.A No. 1452 of 2018

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1452 OF 2018 (A-)

BETWEEN:

NATARAJA H B S/O. BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT VALLABAY ROAD, 3RD CROSS, HASSAN TOWN, HASSAN 573201

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SHARATH KUMAR H N.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

V B MAHADEVA

S/O. BOJEGOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

R/AT BEDACHAVALLI VILLAGE, ASHRAYA LAYOUT, KASABA HOBLI, ALUR TALUK 573212

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. H C NATARAJ.,ADVOCATE)

CRL.A. FILED U/S 378(4) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.06.2018 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ALUR IN C.C.NO.594/2015-ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 ON N.I ACT.

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

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:57627 CRL.A No. 1452 of 2018

HC-KAR

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 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

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:57627 CRL.A No. 1452 of 2018

HC-KAR

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 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

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:57627 CRL.A No. 1452 of 2018

HC-KAR

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 of Sessions and be considered as an appeal under the proviso to Section 413 of BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 372 of Cr.PC)

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:57627 CRL.A No. 1452 of 2018

HC-KAR

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;

iv. Considering the fact that the matter has been pending for considerable time, the Appellate Court is requested to make an endeavour to

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:57627 CRL.A No. 1452 of 2018

HC-KAR

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.: 385