Dismissed¶32

Sri Amaresh v. Sri Shreeshail

Karnataka HC10 Dec 2025CRL.P/201321/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Kalaburagi Bench (Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.), 10-12-2025, CRL.P No. 201321 of 2025: quashing petition under S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS against dismissal for non-prosecution of a S.138 NI Act complaint; held not maintainable since dismissal equals acquittal under S.256 Cr.P.C.; alternative remedy of appeal under S.372 Cr.P.C. to District Court; limitation protected under S.14 Limitation Act, 1963; relies on Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320). Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. before the competent District Court; period spent before the High Court excluded for limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. ¶32

Sri Amaresh Vs Sri Shreeshail — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS) is maintainable to quash an order dismissing a private complaint for non-prosecution, when such dismissal amounts to acquittal under Section 256 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

The dismissal of a private complaint under Section 138 NI Act for non-prosecution after the appearance of the accused amounts to an acquittal in terms of Section 256 Cr.P.C. (Section 226 BNSS); consequently, invocation of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Relying on M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran & Others [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320], the petitioner has an efficacious alternative statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. before the competent District Court.

¶31

Key takeaways

While dismissing the petition with liberty to avail the appellate remedy, the Court clarified that the period spent in prosecuting the proceedings before the High Court shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation by extending the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (old) / Section 528 BNSS (new) challenging the order dated 01.04.2025 of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Shahapur dismissing C.C.No.1772/2023 — a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — for non-prosecution after the appearance of the accused. HELD: Such dismissal amounts to an acquittal in terms of Section 256 Cr.P.C. (Section 226 BNSS); therefore, invocation of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Following M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran & Others [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320], the petitioner was held to have an efficacious alternative statutory remedy of an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. before the competent District Court. Petition dismissed with liberty to pursue that remedy; period spent before the High Court excluded for limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7655 CRL.P No. 201321 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶5

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶6

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201321 OF 2025

¶10

(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SRI. AMARESH S/O MALLAYYA VIRAKTHAMATH, AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O DEVINAGAR, SHAHAPUR CITY, TQ. SHAHAPUR DIST. YADGIR-585222.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. SHRAVANKUMAR MATH, FOR S. S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATES)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

SRI. SHREESHAIL S/O BHEEMSHA TELI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT TEACHER GOVT. SCHOOL LONI (B.K) TQ.CHADACHAN, DIST.VIJAYAPURA NOW AT R/O GOVT. HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, B.N.TANDA UKKINAL, POST UKKINAL TQ.SHAHAPUR, DIST.YADGIR-585223

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION BY QUASHING ORDER OF

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:7655 CRL.P No. 201321 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

DISMISSAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION DATED 01.04.2025 IN C.C.NO.1772/2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SHAHAPUR FURTHER TO RESTORE THE SAME TO ITS ORIGINAL FILE IN CC NO.1772/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SHAHAPUR.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), calling in question the order passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the private complaint instituted under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, after the appearance of the accused. The dismissal of the complaint at this stage amounts to an acquittal in terms of Section 256 of Cr.P.C. (Section 226 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). Consequently, invocation of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. In light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium

¶27

Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran & Others [2025 SCC OnLine

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7655 CRL.P No. 201321 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

SC 1320], the petitioner has an efficacious alternative statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. before the competent District Court.

¶32

Accordingly, reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail the said remedy, the petition is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the period spent in prosecuting the present proceedings before this Court shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation, by extending the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

¶33

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶34

ALB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7 CT:SI

Sri Amaresh v. Sri Shreeshail

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Amaresh v. Sri Shreeshail

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nityanand Vs Sanjayraj Gourinandan

Dattu Jadhav S/O Narsing Jadhav Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Nagamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivalingaswamy Guru Mahadevaswamy Vs C S Nimbal and Ors.

Meheboob @ Mahammeed Vs Shamina Begum

Mahantesh Vs the State of Karnataka