Mr. Apurba Mondal v. Sri Krishna

Karnataka HC19 Nov 2025CRL.A/288/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (NC: 2025:KHC:48625), CRL.A No. 288 of 2020, S Rachaiah J., decided 19-11-2025: maintainability of complainant's appeal against acquittal — proviso to Section 372 CrPC versus Section 378(4) CrPC; Celestium Financial followed; acquittal under Section 255(1) CrPC in C.C.No.16673/2018 for Section 138 NI Act offence; appeal transferred to Sessions Court; appearance date 13.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Appeal transferred to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court; parties directed to appear before that Court 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; appeal stands disposed of for statistical purposes. ¶¶41

Mr. Apurba Mondal Vs Sri Krishna — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant under Section 378(4) CrPC against the order of acquittal is maintainable before the High Court, or whether the complainant, being the victim, must instead invoke Section 372 (proviso) CrPC before the jurisdictional Sessions Court, per Celestium Financial.

¶¶29

Court's answer

On a careful reading of the Apex Court's judgment in 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.

¶¶39

Ratio / Principle

In view of the law laid down in Celestium Financial, the appeal by the complainant against the order of acquittal is not maintainable before this Court; the High Court has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merit.

¶¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal by complainant under Section 378(4) CrPC against acquittal under Section 255(1) CrPC for offence punishable under Section 138 NI Act — HELD, following Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. (2025 SCC Online SC 1320), that the complainant being the victim has to file the appeal against the order of acquittal before the jurisdictional Sessions Court by invoking Section 372 CrPC and need not advert to Section 378(4); the appeal is not maintainable before the High Court, which has no jurisdiction to decide it on merit; appeal transferred to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court, parties to appear on 13.01.2026, Registry to transmit appeal papers, liberty to amend cause title; appeal disposed of for statistical purposes.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:48625 CRL.A No. 288 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.288 OF 2020 (A)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. APURBA MONDAL S/O. NETAI PADA MONDAL, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.12, GANIGARA ‘C’ LANE, NAGARPET CROSS, BENGALURU – 560 002.

¶10

… APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. SHRIDHARA K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI. KRISHNA S/O. VAJRAVELU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT. NO.104, 1^ST MAIN, 8^TH CROSS, LAGGERE, BENGALURU – 560 058,

¶14

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

¶15

AND ALSO AT,

¶16

‘AISHWARYA JEWELRY’ NO.184, MEI COLONY, LAGGERE MAIN ROAD, PEENYA 3^RD PHASE, NEAR CANARA BANK ATM, BENGALURU – 560 058.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SMT. SOHANI HOLLA, ADVOCATE AMICUS CURIAE)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/ORDER DATED 18.01.2020 PASSED BY THE XIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU UNDER SECTION 255 (1) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, CODE IN C.C.NO.16673/2018 – ACQUITTING THE

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:48625 CRL.A No. 288 of 2020

¶21

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

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

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 20.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶26

CAV JUDGMENT

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)

¶28

This appeal is filed by the

¶29

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

¶30

However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶31

Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.¹ , held in paragraph No.10 as under:

¶32

“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

¶33

1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48625 CRL.A No. 288 of 2020

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

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

¶37

On careful reading of the judgment of the Apex

¶38

Court supra, it is evident that, the complainant being

¶39

victim has to file an appeal against the order of acquittal before the Jurisdictional Sessions Court by invoking

¶40

Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶41

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.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:48625 CRL.A No. 288 of 2020

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45