Shabri Devaiah Vs Mrs Meenaxi — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

Shabri Devaiah Vs Mrs Meenaxi — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal held not maintainable before the High Court and 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; learned counsel for the appellant at liberty to carry out amendment in the cause title and the provisions thereof; appeal disposed of for statistical purposes.

Issue for consideration

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

Court's answer

On a careful reading of Celestium Financial (Supreme Court), the complainant being a 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.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the law laid down in Celestium Financial, the complainant's appeal against the order of acquittal is not maintainable before the High Court; the Court has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits, and therefore transferred the appeal to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (S Rachaiah J., 19.11.2025) in CRL.A No. 663 of 2020: Complainant's appeal under S.378(4) Cr.P.C. against acquittal dated 06.03.2020 passed by the XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City in C.C.No.13353/2018 (offence punishable under S.138 N.I. Act) held NOT MAINTAINABLE. Relying on Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 SCC Online SC 1320 (whose para 10 was quoted), the Court held that a complainant who is a 'victim' must file the appeal against acquittal before the jurisdictional Sessions Court by invoking S.372 Cr.P.C., 1973, and that the High Court has no jurisdiction to decide such an appeal on merits. The appeal (heard and reserved on 17.09.2025) was transferred to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court, with parties to appear there on 13.01.2026 without further notice; the Registry was directed to transmit the entire appeal papers including the appeal memo; counsel for the appellant was given liberty to amend the cause title and provisions thereof; and the appeal stood disposed of for statistical purposes.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48626 CRL.A No. 663 of 2020

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.663 OF 2020 (A)

BETWEEN:

SHABRI DEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, W/O. SRI. DEVAIAH P.C. D/O. K. GANAPATHY, NO.313, NEW NO.255, 5^TH MAIN, BAHUBALINAGAR, PIPELINE ROAD, JALAHALLI POST, BENGALURU – 560 013, REP. BY HER SPA HOLDER, K.K. GANAPATHY.

… APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.R.C. MANOHAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

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

MRS. MEENAXI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, NO.145, 3^RD CROSS, R.K. GARDEN, BEHIND GOWRY APARTMENT, BENGALURU – 560 054.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. R.RAVI, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) CR.P.C., PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.03.2020 PASSED BY THE XVIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY IN C.C.NO.13353/2018, AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE N.I. ACT, AND ETC.,. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 17.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48626 CRL.A No. 663 of 2020

HC-KAR

PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

CAV JUDGMENT

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

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

However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

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

paragraph No.10 as under:

“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

1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48626 CRL.A No. 663 of 2020

HC-KAR

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.”

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.

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.

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

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48626 CRL.A No. 663 of 2020

HC-KAR

The Registry shall transmit entire appeal papers

including appeal memo to the jurisdictional Sessions Court.

The learned counsel for the appellant shall have

the liberty to carry out the amendment in the cause title and also the provisions thereof.

For statistical purpose, this appeal stands

disposed off.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

NM List No.: 19 Sl No.: 11