Complainant's appeal against acquittal in a cheque dishonour case was disposed of by transferring it to the Sessions Court to be treated as a victim's appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., following Celestium Financial. No merits were decided.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:5721 CRL.A No. 1895 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1895 OF 2025 (A)
BETWEEN:
ANTHONYSWAMY S/O LATE RAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.60, 2ND CROSS, VISHWAPRIYA LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 068. …APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANJUNATH B.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
VIJAY KUMAR .M S/O MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.G-1, GROUND FLOOR, VIGNESH APARTMENT, OPPOSITE TO ROYAL SHELTER, DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 076.
AND ALSO AT: KANYASHREE DIAGNOSTIC AND HEALTH SERVICE, NO. 90/1, 11TH MAIN, BEGUR MAIN ROAD, HONGASANDRA BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALURU-560 068. …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE XIX ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU CITY IN C.C.NO.1909/2019 DATED 19.08.2025 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT.
NC: 2026:KHC:5721 CRL.A No. 1895 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
appellant/complainant being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 19.08.2025 passed in C.C No.1909/2019 by the XIX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru (for short "the trial Court").
reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1320, at paragraph 10 of the judgment, has observed as under:
" 10. As already noted, the proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. was inserted in the statue 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.
NC: 2026:KHC:5721 CRL.A No. 1895 of 2025
HC-KAR
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. "
recent clarification of the legal position, it is now evident that the appellant, being the complainant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is also entitled to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court before the Sessions Court, since he is considered to be a victim. 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.
HC-KAR
KANKANE v. NARENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA rendered in Criminal Appeal No.5910 of 2025 decided on 03rd July, 2025; and in the case of LATE KISAN SEWA KENDRA v. PRITAM SINGH reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE MP 4818; and in SMT. URMIT MADRAH v. SAMARPAN JAIN rendered
Criminal Appeal No. 11872 of 2022 decided on 21st July, 2025; the decision of High Court of Chattisgarh in NEELAM SAHU v. NARADNAGWANSHI rendered in ACQA No. 340 of 2018 decided on 16th July, 2025; and in SMT. KIRTI KURIAN v. AJAY SINGH rendered in ACQA No. 198 of 2019 decided on 16th July, 2025; the judgment of this Court in the case of SIDAGONDAPPA v. SHAFI AHAMAD rendered in CRL.A. No. 20021/2018 decided on 31st July, 2025 and in SRI T.H. LENKAPPA v. SRI SANJAY AND ANOTHER rendered in Criminal Appeal No.146 of 2015 decided on 23rd July, 2025; the decision of High Court of Delhi in the case of D.K. ASSOCIATES v. SHANKAR AND ANOTHER rendered in Criminal Appeal No.694 of 2016 decided on 13th November, 2025 and the decision rendered by the Co-
HC-KAR
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/S. ANANYA ENTERPRISES v. SRI G.S. GOPALAKRISHNA rendered in Criminal Appeal No.100171 of 2016 decided on 24th November, 2025. An overall assessment of the aforestated decisions reveals that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of CELESTIUM FINANCIAL (supra) has been relied upon by this Court, as well as other High Courts across the country.
present appeal be transferred to the concerned appellate Court of Sessions and be considered as an appeal under
the proviso to Section 413 of BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 372 of Cr.P.C) and numbered accordingly. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
NC: 2026:KHC:5721 CRL.A No. 1895 of 2025
HC-KAR
concerned Appellate Court having the jurisdiction and for which purpose, it would be listed before the Principal District & Sessions Judge;
NC: 2026:KHC:5721 CRL.A No. 1895 of 2025
HC-KAR
directions, appeal stands disposed of.
Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE
MBM
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 19
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a complainant under Section 138 NI Act can appeal an acquittal before the Sessions Court as a victim under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C./Section 413 BNSS instead of Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Celestium Financial v. A GnanasekaranRelied on¶2
2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1320 · Who else cites this
Charbel India v. State of Andhra PradeshReferred¶4
2025 SCC ONLINE AP 2815 · Who else cites this
Manorama Kankane v. Narendra Kumar ShuklaReferred¶4
Criminal Appeal No.5910 of 2025 decided on 03.07.2025
Late Kisan Sewa Kendra v. Pritam SinghReferred¶4
2025 SCC ONLINE MP 4818 · Who else cites this
Neelam Sahu v. NaradnagwanshiReferred¶4
ACQA No. 340 of 2018 decided on 16.07.2025
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Anthonyswamy S/o Late Rayappa
Vijay Kumar .M S/o Mahadevappa
G BASAVARAJA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
