Sri. Veerappa Vs Sri. Satish. H. M.

SRI. VEERAPPA S/O. LATE VEERABHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT AREHALLI VILLAGE, BILAGUMBA POST, KOOTAGAL HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 159.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SRI. SATISH. H. M. S/O. SRI. MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT CONTRACTOR PUTTASWAMAIAH BUILDING, BHUVANESHWARI NAGARA, ARCH ROAD, WARD NO. 27, MAGADI ROAD, RAMANAGARA TOWN PIN-562 159.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(SATISH H M - RESPONDENT - SERVED)

¶17

CRL.A FILED U/S 378(4) OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/S PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.08.2022 PASSED BY THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., RAMANAGARA IN C.C.NO.131/2017.I.A.NO.1/2023 FOR C.D. IN FILING.I.A.NO.1/2023 FILED BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 160 DAYS IN FILING THE ABOVE CRL.A., FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:55662 CRL.A No. 963 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed by the appellant/

¶25

complainant being aggrieved by the dismissal of complaint vide order dated 03.08.2022 passed in C.C No.131/2017 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara (for short "the trial Court").

¶26

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CELESTIUM FINANCIAL v. A GNANASEKARAN ETC.

¶27

reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1320, at paragraph 10 of the judgment, has observed as under:

¶28

" 10. As already noted, the proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. 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 Cr.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:55662 CRL.A No. 963 of 2023

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

P.C., 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. P.C. "

¶32

In the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's

¶33

recent clarification of the legal position, it is now evident

¶34

that the appellant, being the complainant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is also entitled to file an appeal before the Sessions Court. 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.

¶35

Considering the above, it is deemed fit that the

¶36

present appeal be transferred to the concerned appellate Court of Sessions. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶37

O R D E R

¶38

i. Registry is directed to transfer the entire record of the case to the concerned Principal District & Sessions Judge, who

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:55662 CRL.A No. 963 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

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;

¶43

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;

¶44

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;

¶45

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;

¶46

v. The appellant is permitted to carry out necessary amendment in the cause-title and also the provisions thereof;

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:55662 CRL.A No. 963 of 2023

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

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.

¶51

In the light of the above observation and

¶52

directions, appeal stands disposed of .

¶53

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶54

LNN

¶55

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 158

Sri. Veerappa v. Sri. Satish. H. M.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Veerappa v. Sri. Satish. H. M.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri S M Harish Vs Smt K C Sharadha

Dileep S Vs Ravindra N S

Sri Siddalinga Krupa Vs Sri Devaraja N

Sri. Ananda Shetty Vs Sri. John Monis

Krishnappa Vs Smt Ramadvi

Sri Chandra Vs Sri R K Vinaykumar