M Krishnanayak Vs Smt Umadevi — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

M Krishnanayak Vs Smt Umadevi — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of by directing transfer of the entire record, including requisitioned trial court records, to the concerned Principal District & Sessions Judge for assignment to the appellate Court of Sessions having jurisdiction, there to be treated and numbered as an appeal under the proviso to Section 413 BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 372 Cr.P.C.); transferee court to issue notice to both parties; pending delay-condonation and other applications also transferred; appellant permitted to amend the cause-title; expeditious disposal requested; no observation on merits, rights and contentions left open.

Issue for consideration

Whether a complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, whose appeal against acquittal was filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., should instead have his appeal dealt with before the Sessions Court as an appeal by a 'victim' under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. (now proviso to Section 413 BNSS, 2023), warranting transfer of the appeal.

Court's answer

Following the Supreme Court's ruling in Celestium Financial v. A Gnanasekaran, the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is considered 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.P.C. (formerly corresponding to proviso to Section 413 BNSS, 2023), and need not proceed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.

Ratio / Principle

The present appeal is directed to be transferred to the concerned appellate Court of Sessions, to be considered and numbered as an appeal under the proviso to Section 413 of BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 372 Cr.P.C.); the Registry is to transfer the entire record including requisitioned trial court copies to the Principal District & Sessions Judge, who shall assign it to the jurisdictional appellate court; the transferee court shall issue notice to both parties and also take up any pending applications for condonation of delay; the appellant is permitted to amend the cause-title; and the appellate court is requested to dispose of the matter expeditiously.

Key takeaways

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

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal (CRL.A No. 469 of 2016, decided 12-12-2025, High Court of Karnataka, G Basavaraja J): Appeal by the complainant under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against acquittal dated 23.12.2015 in CC No.559/2011 (Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosanagara) for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Relying on Celestium Financial v. A Gnanasekaran, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320 (paras 10 and 25), and noting consistent views of the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Delhi and coordinate Benches of the Karnataka High Court (paras 29-32), the Court held that a complainant under Section 138 NI Act is a 'victim' entitled to appeal against acquittal before the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., now the proviso to Section 413 BNSS, 2023, rather than under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.; hearing the appeal in the High Court could deprive the parties of a further available forum. The appeal was accordingly disposed of by directing transfer of the entire record to the Principal District & Sessions Judge for assignment to the jurisdictional Sessions appellate court, to be considered and numbered as an appeal under the proviso to Section 413 BNSS; notice to parties, transfer of pending applications, liberty to amend the cause-title, and a request for expeditious disposal were ordered; no observation was made on merits and all rights and contentions were left open (para 46).

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:56353 CRL.A No. 469 of 2016

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 469 OF 2016 (A-)

BETWEEN:

M. KRISHNANAYAK S/O M KAMALAKARNAYAK AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: AUDITOR, C/O N.S.SRIDHAR, R/O NAGARAKODIGE POST, HOSANAGAR TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 418.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. B S PRASAD .,ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

SMT. UMADEVI PROPREITOR OF S.S.ENTERPRISES, NO. 597A, 3RD FLOOR, SRIKANTAPPA COMPLEX, UPSTAIRS OF ANNAPURNA BEAKERI, VIDYAPEETA ROAD, KOTE KENGERI, BANGALORE - 560 060.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. UMADEVI - RESPONDENT SERVED)

CRL.A FILED U/S 378(4) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.12.2015 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HOSANAGARA IN C.C.NO.559/2011 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:56353 CRL.A No. 469 of 2016

HC-KAR

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 23.12.2015 passed in CC No.559/2011 by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosanagara (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 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:56353 CRL.A No. 469 of 2016

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:56353 CRL.A No. 469 of 2016

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:56353 CRL.A No. 469 of 2016

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:56353 CRL.A No. 469 of 2016

HC-KAR

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

KBM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0