Dismissed

H.R. Chandru v. M. Venkatesh

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2026CRL.A/1798/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held it lacked jurisdiction to decide a criminal appeal filed under Section 378(4) CrPC by the complainant against an order of acquittal. Relying on Celestium Financial, the court ruled that complainants-victims must appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC before the Sessions Court. The appeal was transferred.

What did the court decide?

Appeal held non-maintainable before the High Court; transferred to the jurisdictional Sessions Court.

H.R. Chandru Vs M. Venkatesh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:35388 CRL.A No. 1798 of 2016

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1798 OF 2016 (A)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

H.R. CHANDRU,

¶10

S/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAIAH,

¶11

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.3,

¶12

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

¶13

SANGOLLI RAYANNA STREET, 4^TH CROSS, NEW BEL ROAD, RMV 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 094.

¶14

(BY SRI. S. SHIVA KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

…APPELLANT

AND:

M. VENKATESH,

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:35388 CRL.A No. 1798 of 2016

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, 12^TH CROSS, RMV 1^ST STAGE, OPP. TO: SWIMMING POOL ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 066.

¶22

…RESPONDENT

¶23

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN C., ADVOCATE)

¶24

¶25

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED 29.08.2016, PASSED BY THE XV ADDLITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MEGISTRATE AT BANGALORE CITY, IN C.C.NO.20515/2014, ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT AND ETC.,

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:35388 CRL.A No. 1798 of 2016

¶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:35388 CRL.A No. 1798 of 2016

¶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

¶41

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.

¶42

The parties shall appear before the jurisdictional Appellate Court / Sessions Court on 17.08 .2026 , without further notice of the concerned Court.

¶43

The Registry shall transmit the entire appeal papers, including the appeal memo, to the jurisdictional Sessions Court.

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:35388 CRL.A No. 1798 of 2016

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

The learned counsel for the appellant shall have

¶47

the liberty to carry out the amendment in the cause title and

¶48

also the provisions thereof.

¶49

For statistical purposes, this appeal stands disposed of . Ordered accordingly.

¶50

In view of the disposal of the appeal, pending I.A., if any, does not survive for consideration and the same is also disposed of.

¶51

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶52

NM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13

H.R. Chandru v. M. Venkatesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.R. Chandru v. M. Venkatesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Vasanthakumar G.L., Vs State of Karnataka by Dibburahalli P.S.

Sri. Naveen Kumar K.S., Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Abhi @ Abhishek Vs State by

M/S. Nikitha Facade Systems Vs M/S. Amithyst Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.

Sri. H. Munivenkatappa Vs Sri. M. Narayanaswamy

M/S Mamatha Financiers (R) Vs Sri. Rajeev Chandan