H P Prashanth Kumar v. K N Lokesh

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2025CRL.A/77/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act acquittal; appeal by complainant under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.; maintainability of appeal against acquittal; Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320; remand to Appellate Court / Sessions Court for fresh consideration; Article 14 Limitation Act; C.C.No.896/2018 Madhugiri; Criminal Appeal No.5014/2022 IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge Tumakuru; High Court of Karnataka; S Rachaiah, J.; single-judge oral judgment disposing of appeal with directions to refile within one month.

What did the court decide?

Matter remanded to the Appellate Court / Sessions Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law; Registry directed to transmit records forthwith; Article 14 of the Limitation Act made applicable to the proposed appeal; appellant directed to file the appeal within one month.

H P Prashanth Kumar Vs K N Lokesh — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶Order (i)

Issue for consideration

Whether the complainant's appeal against acquittal under Section 138 N.I. Act is maintainable, and before which forum (Sessions Court under S.378(4) Cr.P.C.) it must be pursued, following dismissal of Criminal Appeal No.5014/2022 on maintainability. +1 more

¶4

Court's answer

In view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, the present appeal against acquittal had to be filed before the Sessions Court.

¶4

Ratio / Principle

The Appellate Court / Sessions Court wrongly held that the said appeal is not maintainable, and that finding is against settled principles of law.

¶4

Key takeaways

The Criminal Appeal is disposed of and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Court / Sessions Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.ratio¶Order (i)
The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the Appellate Court / Sessions Court forthwith.ratio¶Order (ii)
Article 14 of the Limitation Act would be applicable to the appeal proposed to be filed by the appellant.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (S Rachaiah, J.), CRL.A No. 77 of 2023, decided 10.07.2025: Criminal appeal under S.378(4) Cr.P.C. by the complainant against acquittal of the accused for the offence under S.138 N.I. Act in C.C.No.896/2018 (Addl. Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Madhugiri; acquittal dated 05.03.2022). The complainant's earlier appeal (Crl.A.No.5014/2022, IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Tumakuru sitting at Madhugiri) had been dismissed on maintainability on 15.10.2022. Relying on the dictum of the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320), the High Court held that the appeal had to be filed before the Sessions Court and that its dismissal on maintainability was against settled principles of law. The appeal was disposed of with the matter remanded to the Appellate Court / Sessions Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law; the Registry was directed to transmit the records forthwith; Article 14 of the Limitation Act was made applicable and the appellant was directed to file the appeal within one month.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:25294 CRL.A No. 77 of 2023

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 77 OF 2023 (A)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

H P PRASHANTH KUMAR S/O PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/A KOSAKERE VILLAGE MEDIGESHI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 128 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVEENDRA GAJANAN KOLLE, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

K N LOKESH S/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/S KATHENAHALLI VILLAGE KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 128 …RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 05.03.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT MADHUGIRI IN C.C.NO.896/2018 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO.896/2018 AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT AS PER LAW.

¶15

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:25294 CRL.A No. 77 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

Heard Sri Raveendra G. Kolle, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶22

The ranks of the parties henceforth will be considered as per their rankings before the Trial Court, for convenience.

¶23

This appeal is arising out of the judgment and order of acquittal dated 05.03.2022 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Madhugiri, in C.C.No.896/2018, wherein the Trial Court recorded the acquittal of the accused / respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short “N.I. Act”). Being aggrieved, complainant / appellant filed an appeal before the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, Sitting at Madhugiri, in Criminal Appeal No.5014/2022. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on maintainability vide its order dated 15.10.2022, reserving liberty to the appellant to approach appropriate forum under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:25294 CRL.A No. 77 of 2023

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

In view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran etc.,¹ the present appeal has to be filed before the Sessions Court. However, the Appellate Court / Sessions Court wrongly held that the said appeal is not maintainable, which is against to the settled principles of law.

¶28

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(i) The Criminal Appeal is disposed of. The matter is remanded to the Appellate Court / Sessions Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

¶31