Vijayakumar Vs Somegowda — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

Vijayakumar Vs Somegowda — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of with directions: (i) Registry to transfer the entire record, including requisitioned trial court copies, to the concerned Principal District & Sessions Judge for assignment to the Appellate Court having jurisdiction; (ii) appeal to be considered and numbered as an appeal under the proviso to Section 413 BNSS 2023 (formerly Section 372 CrPC); (iii) transferee court to issue Court notice to both parties and proceed in accordance with law; (iv) pending applications, including any for condonation of delay, to stand transferred; (v) expeditious disposal requested; (vi) appellant permitted to amend the cause-title; no observation on merits, rights and contentions left open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, whose appeal against acquittal was filed under Section 378(4) CrPC before the High Court, is a 'victim' entitled to prefer the appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC (now the proviso to Section 413 BNSS 2023) before the Sessions Court, and whether the appeal should therefore be transferred to the Sessions Court instead of being decided by the High Court.

Court's answer

In the light of the Supreme Court's clarification in Celestium Financial, the appellant, being the complainant under Section 138 NI Act, is a victim entitled to file the appeal against the acquittal before the Sessions Court (under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, now the proviso to Section 413 BNSS 2023), rather than pursuing it under Section 378(4) CrPC before the High Court.

Ratio / Principle

If the High Court were to proceed to hear and decide the appeal at this stage, the parties could be deprived of the Sessions Court as an available forum for further challenge; hence the appeal is deemed fit to be transferred to the concerned appellate Court of Sessions.

Key takeaways

The present appeal is to be transferred to the concerned Principal District & Sessions Judge, assigned to the appellate Court having jurisdiction, and considered and numbered as an appeal under the proviso to Section 413 of BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 372 of Cr.PC).ratio¶39
Operative directions: Registry to transfer the entire record including requisitioned trial court copies to the concerned Principal District & Sessions Judge for assignment to the competent 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.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (G Basavaraja J, 08.12.2025), CRL.A No. 1901 of 2022 (NC: 2025:KHC:54927): Complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case (C.C.No.5370/2016, II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Hassan), whose appeal against the acquittal dated 08.07.2022 was filed under Section 378(4) CrPC, is a 'victim' who, following Celestium Financial v. A Gnanasekaran (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320), must prefer the appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC - now the proviso to Section 413 BNSS 2023 - before the Sessions Court; deciding it in the High Court would deprive the parties of that forum. Appeal disposed of with directions to transfer the entire record to the Principal District & Sessions Judge, renumber it under the proviso to S.413 BNSS, issue notice to both parties, transfer pending applications (including condonation of delay), dispose expeditiously, and permit amendment of the cause-title; no observation on merits, all rights and contentions left open. Similar views noted from Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Delhi High Courts and co-ordinate benches of the Karnataka High Court.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:54927 CRL.A No. 1901 of 2022

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1901 OF 2022 (A)

BETWEEN:

VIJAYAKUMAR

S/O LATE RAJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/A VIJAYANAGARA BADAVANE HASSAN-34.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K C., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SOMEGOWDA

KSRTC DRIVER, R/A 1ST STAGE, VIJAYANAGARA BADAVANE, B M ROAD, HASSAN-34.

Digitally signed by DHAKSHAYINI R Location: High Court of Karnataka

…RESPONDENT CRL.A FILED U/S.378(4) OF CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.07.2022 PASSED IN C.C.NO.5370/2016 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT HASSAN AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF THE N.I ACT.

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

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:54927 CRL.A No. 1901 of 2022

HC-KAR

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 08.07.2022 passed in C.C.No.5370/2016 by the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan (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 statue 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. "

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:54927 CRL.A No. 1901 of 2022

HC-KAR

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^st July, 2025; the decision of High Court of Chattisgarh in NEELAM SAHU v. NARADNAGWANSHI rendered

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:54927 CRL.A No. 1901 of 2022

HC-KAR

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 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:54927 CRL.A No. 1901 of 2022

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:54927 CRL.A No. 1901 of 2022

HC-KAR

iv. Considering 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 observations 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.: 101