Sri S Srinivas Vs Mr P Lakshmipathy — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri S Srinivas Vs Mr P Lakshmipathy — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeals 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 appeal memo to the jurisdictional Sessions Court; learned counsel for the appellants at liberty to carry out amendment in the cause title and the provisions thereof; appeals stand disposed of for statistical purpose.

Issue for consideration

Whether an appeal preferred by the complainant under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against the order of acquittal is maintainable before the High Court, or whether the complainant, being a victim, must instead appeal before the jurisdictional Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.

Court's answer

On a careful reading of the judgment of the Apex Court in Celestium Financial, it is evident that 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 by the Apex Court, the appeal by the complainant against the order of acquittal is not maintainable before this Court; since the Court has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits, the appeals are transferred to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeals (CRL.A. Nos. 725, 726 and 727 of 2018) by complainants S. Chandra Shekar, S. Satish Kumar and S. Srinivas against P. Lakshmipathy, filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., challenging the judgments and orders of acquittal dated 02.04.2018 passed by the LVIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City in Criminal Case Nos. 54579/2016, 54580/2016 and 54581/2016 arising under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Held, relying on Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320 (paragraph 10): a victim of an offence who is also the complainant must prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal before the jurisdictional Sessions Court by invoking the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; consequently, an appeal by the complainant against the order of acquittal is not maintainable before the High Court. Having no jurisdiction to decide the appeals on merits, the Court transferred the appeals to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court, directed the parties to appear thereon on 13.01.2026 without further notice, ordered the Registry to transmit the entire appeal papers including the appeal memo, permitted the appellants' counsel to amend the cause title and provisions, and disposed of the appeals for statistical purpose. (Judgment delivered orally by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S Rachaiah on 24 November 2025.)

NC: 2025:KHC:28969 CRL.A No. 725 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 726 of 2018 CRL.A No. 727 of 2018

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.725 OF 2018

(378(Cr.PC) / 419(BNSS))

C/W

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.726 OF 2018

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.727 OF 2018

IN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.725/2018

BETWEEN:

SRI. S. CHANDRA SHEKAR S/O. LATE. D.Y. SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.71/2, 6^TH CROSS, DOMLUR, BENGALURU-71.

&APPELLANT

(BY SRI. NAGARAJA RAO K.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR. P. LAKSHMIPATHY S/O. PAPAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.379, WEST WING ROAD, AMARAJYOTHI LAYOUT, DOMLUR, BENGALURU-71.

&RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE)

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:28969 CRL.A No. 725 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 726 of 2018 CRL.A No. 727 of 2018

HC-KAR

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) CR.P.C., PRAYING TO, ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL OF THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.54579/2016 DATED 02.04.2018 PASSED BY THE LVIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY BY CONVICTING THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE N.I. ACT.

IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.726/2018

BETWEEN:

SRI. S. SATISH KUMAR S/O. LATE. D.Y. SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.10, MANASA, MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU-16.

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. NAGARAJA RAO K.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR. P. LAKSHMIPATHY S/O. PAPAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.379, WEST WING ROAD, AMARAJYOTHI LAYOUT, DOMLUR, BENGALURU-71.

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS UNDER SECTION 378(4) CR.P.C., PRAYING TO, ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL OF THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.54580/2016 DATED 02.04.2018 PASSED BY THE

NC: 2025:KHC:28969 CRL.A No. 725 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 726 of 2018 CRL.A No. 727 of 2018

3 -

HC-KAR

LVIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY BY CONVICTING THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE N.I. ACT.

IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.727/2018

BETWEEN:

SRI. S. SRINIVAS S/O. LATE. D.Y. SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEAS, RESIDING AT NO.4/1, GURUMURTHY STREET, RAMAKRISHNA MUTT ROAD, ULSOOR, BENGALURU-08.

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. NAGARAJA RAO K.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR. P. LAKSHMIPATHY S/O. PAPAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.379, WEST WING ROAD, AMARAJYOTHI LAYOUT, DOMLUR, BENGALURU-71.

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 (4)CR.P.C., PRAYING TO, ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL OF THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED IN THE CRIMINAL CASE NO.54581/2016 DATED 02.04.2018, PASSED BY THE LVIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY BY CONVICTING THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE N.I. ACT.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:28969 CRL.A No. 725 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 726 of 2018 CRL.A No. 727 of 2018

HC-KAR

THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

ORAL JUDGMENT

These appeals are filed by the

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

However, the Hon9ble 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 of whether he is a

1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:28969 CRL.A No. 725 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 726 of 2018 CRL.A No. 727 of 2018

HC-KAR

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.

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:28969 CRL.A No. 725 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 726 of 2018 CRL.A No. 727 of 2018

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/CT: UMD List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2