Sri. Harshavardhan Aithal Vs Sri. Umesh Shetty — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri. Harshavardhan Aithal Vs Sri. Umesh Shetty — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of by directing transfer of the entire case record (including requisitioned trial-court copies) to the concerned Principal District & Sessions Judge for assignment to the jurisdictional Appellate Court; appeal to be treated and numbered as one under the proviso to Section 413 BNSS, 2023; transferee court to issue court notice to both parties; pending applications including condonation of delay to be transferred and considered there; expeditious disposal requested; appellant permitted to amend the cause-title; merits expressly left open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal filed by the complainant under Section 378(4) Cr.PC against the acquittal is properly before the High Court, or whether, the complainant being a 'victim', the appeal should be pursued before the Sessions Court as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.PC (now the proviso to Section 413 BNSS, 2023).

Court's answer

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 Section 372 Cr.PC (now the proviso to Section 413 BNSS, 2023); hearing the appeal in the High Court at this stage could deprive the parties of an available forum for further challenge.

Ratio / Principle

The present appeal shall 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), with the Registry directed to transfer the entire record including requisitioned trial-court copies to the concerned Principal District & Sessions Judge.

Key takeaways

This Court has made no observation as to the merits of the case; all rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be agitated before the transferee court.obiter¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal (CRL.A No. 1460 of 2023) under S.378(4) Cr.PC by the complainant against the judgment of acquittal dated 29.05.2023 in C.C.No.3664/2018 (IV Addl. JMFC, Udupi) for an offence under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Relying on Celestium Financial v. A Gnanasekaran (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320), and noting concurrence from High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Delhi and co-ordinate benches, the High Court of Karnataka held that a complainant under S.138 NI Act is a 'victim' entitled to appeal against acquittal before the Sessions Court under the proviso to S.372 Cr.PC, now the proviso to S.413 BNSS, 2023. The appeal was disposed of by transferring the entire record to the Principal District & Sessions Judge for numbering and adjudication accordingly, with court notice to the parties, transfer of pending applications (including condonation of delay), liberty to amend the cause-title, and an express reservation that no observation was made on the merits.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:57356 CRL.A No. 1460 of 2023

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. 1460 OF 2023 (A-)

BETWEEN:

SRI. HARSHAVARDHAN AITHAL S/O MAHABALESHWAR AITHAL, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT EKADANTA, SHRINGAR KELARKALABETTU, SANTHEKATTE UDUPI 576 105

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

SRI. UMESH SHETTY S/O GOPAL SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT PADUMUNDU, HEBBAGILUMANE SHIRIYARA VILLAGE SAIBARAKATTE POST UDUPI TALUK 576 213

SMT. SHAKUNTALA W/O V.N. SUVRNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT BAIDASHREE ASHRVADA NAGAR KELARKALABETTU POST AND VILLAGE UDUPI 576 105

SRI. SATISH A NAYAK S/O ANANDA KRISHNA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, PANCHAJANYA APARTMENT BADAGABETTU ROAD,

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:57356 CRL.A No. 1460 of 2023

HC-KAR

PARKALA POST UDUPI 576 107

…RESPONDENTS

CRL.A FILED U/S 378(4) CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 29.05.2023 MADE IN C.C.NO.3664/2018 BY THE COURT OF IV ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,UDUPI AND CONVICT THE ACCUSED / RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 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 judgment of acquittal dated 29.05.2023 passed in C.C.NO.3664/2018 by the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Udupi (for short "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

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:57356 CRL.A No. 1460 of 2023

HC-KAR

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 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

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:57356 CRL.A No. 1460 of 2023

HC-KAR

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^st July, 2025; the decision of High Court of Chattisgarh in NEELAM SAHU v. NARADNAGWANSHI rendered in ACQA No. 340 of 2018 decided on 16^th July, 2025; and in SMT. KIRTI KURIAN v. AJAY SINGH rendered in ACQA No. 198 of 2019 decided on 16^th July, 2025; the judgment of this Court in the case of SIDAGONDAPPA v. SHAFI AHAMAD rendered in CRL.A. No. 20021/2018 decided on 31^st July, 2025 and in SRI T.H. LENKAPPA v. SRI SANJAY AND ANOTHER rendered in Criminal Appeal No.146 of 2015 decided on 23^rd July, 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^th November, 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^th November, 2025. An overall assessment of the aforestated decisions reveals that the decision of the

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:57356 CRL.A No. 1460 of 2023

HC-KAR

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:

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;

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:57356 CRL.A No. 1460 of 2023

HC-KAR

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;

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

DHA

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 99