Sri Channegowda H Vs Sri Devaraju — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri Channegowda H Vs Sri Devaraju — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of with directions: Registry to transfer the entire record, including requisitioned trial court copies, to the concerned Principal District & Sessions Judge for assignment to the jurisdictional Appellate Court; transferee court to issue notice to both parties and proceed in accordance with law; pending applications (including condonation of delay) to be transferred and considered by the transferee Court; Appellate Court requested to dispose of the matter expeditiously; appellant permitted to amend the cause-title and provisions thereof; no observations on merits, rights and contentions left open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the complainant's appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against acquittal for an offence under Section 138 NI Act should be heard by the High Court, or whether the complainant, being a 'victim', should pursue the appeal before the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. (now proviso to Section 413 BNSS, 2023), warranting transfer of the appeal.

Court's answer

In light of the Supreme Court's clarification in Celestium Financial, the appellant/complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is a victim entitled to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal before the Sessions Court.

Ratio / Principle

If the High Court were to proceed to hear and decide the appeal at this stage, it could deprive the parties of an available forum, i.e. the High Court, for further challenge.

Key takeaways

The present appeal is to be transferred to the concerned appellate Court of Sessions and considered as an appeal under the proviso to Section 413 of BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 372 of Cr.PC) and numbered accordingly.ratio¶40
The Court has made no observations on the merits of the case; all rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be agitated before the transferee Court.obiter¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2019 (High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, G Basavaraja J., decided 09-12-2025; NC: 2025:KHC:55101): Appeal by the complainant under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against his acquittal... i.e., against the judgment of acquittal dated 07.05.2018 passed by the XVI Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru in C.C.No.10841/2016 acquitting the respondent/accused for an offence under Section 138 N.I. Act. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Celestium Financial v. A Gnanasekaran (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320), and noting similar views of the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Delhi and of the Karnataka High Court, the Court held that the complainant under Section 138 NI Act is a 'victim' entitled to appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court, and that hearing the appeal in the High Court could deprive the parties of an available forum for further challenge. The appeal was disposed of with directions to transfer the entire record to the concerned Principal District & Sessions Judge, to be considered as an appeal under the proviso to Section 413 BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 372 Cr.P.C.) and numbered accordingly; the transferee court to issue notice to the parties, take over pending applications including condonation of delay, and dispose of the matter expeditiously; the appellant permitted to amend the cause-title. No observations were made on the merits; all rights and contentions were left open.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:55101 CRL.A No. 54 of 2019

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2019 (A)

BETWEEN:

SRI. CHANNEGOWDA H S/O LATE HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.168, AKKAYAMMA NILAYA, 5TH A CROSS, NARASIMHAIAH LAYOUT VIJINAPURA, BENGALURU - 560016.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by DHAKSHAYINI R Location: High Court of Karnataka

SRI. DEVARAJU S/O VENKATESHAPPA @ VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS CHANNAKESHAVA GLASS AND PLYWOODS HARDWARE, NO.40, 8TH MAIN, HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD, DASARAHALLI VILLAGE BENGALURU - 560 073

AND ALSO AT MASTHENAHALLI, KAIVARA POST, CHINTAMANI TALUK, NOW CHIKKABALAPURA DISTRICT,

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. P N HEGDE,ADVOCATE)

CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/S PRAYING THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:55101 CRL.A No. 54 of 2019

HC-KAR

ACQUITTAL DATED 07.05.2018 PASSED BY THE XVI ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.10841/2016 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT.

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 07.05.2018 passed in C.C.No.10841/2016 by the XVI Addl. C.M.M, Bengaluru City (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

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:55101 CRL.A No. 54 of 2019

HC-KAR

still proceed under the proviso to Section 372 and need not advert to sub-section (4) of Section 378 of Cr.PC. "

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

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:55101 CRL.A No. 54 of 2019

HC-KAR

Chattisgarh in NEELAM SAHU v. NARADNAGWANSHI rendered

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.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:55101 CRL.A No. 54 of 2019

HC-KAR

Considering the above, it is deemed fit that the present appeal be transferred to the concerned appellate Court 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

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:55101 CRL.A No. 54 of 2019

HC-KAR

be considered by the learned Judge of transferee Court, in accordance with law;

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.: 70