Disposed¶50

Mr Narasimhamurthy v. Sri P Mohana Sundaram

Karnataka HC17 Nov 2025CRL.A/201/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of complainant's appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against acquittal; victim's right to appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. before jurisdictional Sessions Court; Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 SCC Online SC 1320 relied upon; transfer of appeal from High Court to Sessions Court; Section 138 N.I. Act acquittals in C.C.Nos. 3969/2013 and 5966/2013; Karnataka High Court; S Rachaiah J.; NC: 2025:KHC:48170.

What did the court decide?

Both appeals transferred to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court; parties directed to appear there on 13.01.2026 without further notice; Registry to transmit the entire appeal papers including the appeal memo; counsel for the appellant at liberty to amend the cause title and the provisions thereof; for statistical purpose the appeals stand disposed of.

Mr Narasimhamurthy Vs Sri P Mohana Sundaram — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether an appeal by the complainant against the order of acquittal, filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., is maintainable before the High Court, having regard to the Supreme Court's holding in Celestium Financial that a victim-complainant must proceed under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. before the jurisdictional Sessions Court.

¶49

Court's answer

On careful reading of the judgment of the Apex Court (Celestium Financial), it is evident that the complainant, being the victim, has to file an appeal against the order of acquittal before the jurisdictional Sessions Court by invoking Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶49

Ratio / Principle

In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the appeal by the complainant against the order of acquittal is not maintainable before this Court (the High Court).

¶50

Key takeaways

Since this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merit, the appeal is transferred to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRL.A No. 200 of 2015 c/w CRL.A No. 201 of 2015 (High Court of Karnataka, S Rachaiah J., 17.11.2025): Appeals by the complainant under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against acquittals dated 09.01.2015 by the 20th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.Nos. 3969/2013 and 5966/2013 for an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. (2025 SCC Online SC 1320), the Court held that a complainant who is the victim must file an appeal against the order of acquittal before the jurisdictional Sessions Court by invoking Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and that such an appeal is not maintainable before the High Court. As the Court had no jurisdiction to decide the appeals on merits, they were transferred to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court; parties directed to appear on 13.01.2026 without further notice; Registry to transmit the entire appeal papers including the appeal memo; counsel at liberty to amend the cause title; for statistical purpose the appeals stand disposed of.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:48170 CRL.A No. 200 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 201 of 2015

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200 OF 2015 (A)

¶8

C/W

¶9

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.201 OF 2015

¶10

IN CRL.A NO.200/2015

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

MR. NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O. KRISHNAPPA, R/AT NO.40, 4^TH CROSS, SANJEEVININAGAR, HEGGANAHALLI, VISWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU-560091.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. K. RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

SRI. P. MOHANA SUNDARAM, PROPRIETOR, PRECISION ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, NO.8, 14^TH "C" CROSS, NEXT TO BHARGAVA PACKINGS, SUNKADAKATTE, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560091.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SMT. SOHANI A.HOLLA, ADVOCATE AS AMICUS-CURIAE )

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) CR.P.C., PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL ORDER DATED 09.01.2015, PASSED BY THE 20TH ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU, IN C.C.NO.3969/2013 – ACQUITTING THE

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:48170 CRL.A No. 200 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 201 of 2015

¶22

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT., AND ETC.,.

¶25

IN CRL.A NO.201/2015

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

MR. NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O. KRISHNAPPA, R/AT. NO.40, 4^TH CROSS, SANJEEVININAGAR, HEGGANAHALLI, VISWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU-560091.

¶28

...APPELLANT

¶29

(BY SRI. K. RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

SRI. P. MOHANA SUNDARAM, PROPRIETOR, PRECISION ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, NO.8, 14TH "C" CROSS, NEXT TO BHARGAVA PACKINGS, SUNKADAKATTE, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560091.

¶32

...RESPONDENT

¶33

(BY SMT. SOHANI A.HOLLA, ADVOCATE AS AMICUS-CURIAE )

¶34

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) CR.P.C., PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.01.2015, PASSED BY THE 20^TH ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU, IN C.C.NO.5966/2013 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT,. AND ETC.,.

¶35

THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 11.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48170 CRL.A No. 200 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 201 of 2015

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶39

CAV JUDGMENT

¶40

appellant/complainant being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.

¶41

However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶42

Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.¹ , held in

¶43

paragraph No.10 as under:

¶44

“10. As already noted, the proviso to Section 372 of the 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 the 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

¶45

1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320

¶46

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48170 CRL.A No. 200 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 201 of 2015

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

not advert to sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the Cr.PC.”

¶49

On careful reading of the judgment of the Apex Court supra, it is evident that, the complainant being victim has to file an appeal against the order of acquittal before the Jurisdictional Sessions Court by invoking Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶50

In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, in Celestial supra, the appeal by the complainant against the order of acquittal is not maintainable before this Court. Since this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merit, the appeal is transferred to jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court.

¶51

The parties shall appear before the jurisdictional Appellate Court / Sessions Court on 13.01.2026 , without further notice of the concerned Court.

¶52