Disposed¶50

Sri T R Dharmappa Gowda, v. Sri Abdul Khadhar

Karnataka HC15 Jun 2026CRL.A/1059/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Complainant's appeal under S. 378(4) Cr.P.C. against acquittal in C.C. No.214/2019 (cheque-amount case) held not maintainable before the High Court; reliance on Celestium Financial (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320) - victim-complainant to appeal under proviso to S. 372 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court; appeal transferred and disposed of. Karnataka HC; S Rachaiah J.; decided 15 June 2026.

What did the court decide?

Appeal transferred, together with the entire appeal papers including the appeal memo, to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court; parties to appear before the Sessions Court on 02.07.2026 without further notice; counsel for the appellant at liberty to amend the cause title and the provisions thereof; pending I.As. disposed of. ¶50

Sri T R Dharmappa Gowda, Vs Sri Abdul Khadhar — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the complainant's appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against the Trial Court's judgment of acquittal is maintainable before this Court, given the Supreme Court's ruling in Celestium Financial that a victim-complainant must appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. before the jurisdictional Sessions Court.

¶39

Court's answer

The complainant, being the victim, has to file the appeal against the order of acquittal before the jurisdictional Sessions Court by invoking Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Celestium Financial, 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 merits, it is transferred to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court.

¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal by the complainant under S. 378(4) Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal dated 20.03.2024 of the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., N.R. Pura, in C.C. No.214/2019 (praying for conviction with double the cheque amount): held not maintainable before the High Court. Following the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320, para 10) that a victim-complainant must prefer the appeal under the proviso to S. 372 Cr.P.C. before the jurisdictional Sessions Court, the appeal was transferred to the jurisdictional Sessions Court, parties directed to appear there on 02.07.2026, the Registry ordered to transmit the entire appeal papers, and the appeal stands disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:28773 CRL.A No. 1059 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1059 OF 2024 (A)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI T. R. DHARMAPPA GOWDA, S/O LATE RAME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶10

COFFEE PLANTER,

¶11

MANJU-VENKATESHWARA ESTATE, HALASURU VILLAGE,

¶12

Digitally signed by SUSHMA LAKSHMI B S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

BALEHONNUR POST, N R PURA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT- 577 112.

¶14

(BY SRI. SHAMANNA B H., ADVOCATE)

¶15

…APPELLANT

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI. ABDUL KHADHAR, PROPRIETOR TASLEEMA TRADERS, MAIN ROAD, KADABAGERE,

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:28773 CRL.A No. 1059 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SANGAMESHWARAPETE POST,

¶21

CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT- 577 136.

¶22

ALSO AT:

¶23

BESIDE ANNAPURNA HOSPITAL, K M ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALUR, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577 101.

¶24

…RESPONDENT ----

¶25

THIS 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 JUDGMENT OF THE HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., N.R.PURA, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, DATED 20.03.2024 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE C.C.NO.214/2019 BY CONVICTING THE ACCUSED WITH DOUBLE THE CHEQUE AMOUNT AND ETC.,

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:28773 CRL.A No. 1059 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant

¶33

being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.

¶34

However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.¹ , held in paragraph No.10 as under:

¶35

“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 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 subsection (4) of Section 378 of the Cr.PC.”

¶36

1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28773 CRL.A No. 1059 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

On careful reading of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court supra, it is evident that the complainant, being the 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.

¶40

In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Celestium Financial case 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 the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court.

¶41

The parties shall appear before the jurisdictional Appellate Court / Sessions Court on 02.07.2026 , without further notice of the concerned Court.

¶42