Sri H N Natashekhar Vs Sri Shivarudraiah — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri H N Natashekhar Vs Sri Shivarudraiah — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of with direction to transfer the entire record to the concerned Principal District & Sessions Judge for assignment to the appellate Court having jurisdiction; transferee court to notify the parties, consider pending applications (including condonation of delay) in accordance with law, and dispose of the matter expeditiously; appellant permitted to carry out necessary amendment in the cause-title and provisions thereof; no observations on merits, rights and contentions left open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal filed by the complainant under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against dismissal of his Section 138 NI Act complaint for default should be entertained by the High Court or pursued before the Sessions Court appellate forum, in view of the Supreme Court's ruling in Celestium Financial v. A Gnanasekaran. +1 more

Court's answer

In light of the Supreme Court's recent clarification (Celestium Financial), the appellant-complainant under Section 138 NI Act is entitled to file an appeal before the Sessions Court; if the High Court were to hear and decide the appeal at this stage, it would deprive the parties of the High Court as an available forum for further challenge.

Ratio / Principle

The appeal is to be transferred: the Registry is directed to transfer the entire record to the concerned Principal District & Sessions Judge, who may assign it to the concerned appellate Court having jurisdiction; the transferee court is to issue court notice to both parties, proceed in accordance with law, take over pending applications including condonation of delay, and endeavour to dispose of the matter expeditiously; the appellant may amend the cause-title and provisions thereof.

Key takeaways

This Court has made no observations on the merits of the case; all rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be agitated before the Court concerned.obiter¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal (CRL.A. No. 1910 of 2022) by the complainant under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 08.12.2021 of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru dismissing his Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint (C.C.No.4307/2015) for default, and seeking restoration of the case: HELD, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Celestium Financial v. A Gnanasekaran, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320 (para 10), that a victim of an offence may prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. irrespective of whether he is the complainant and need not advert to Section 378(4), the complainant-appellant is entitled to file an appeal before the Sessions Court; since a decision by the High Court at that stage would deprive the parties of the High Court as a forum for further challenge, the Court directed transfer of the entire record to the Principal District & Sessions Judge for assignment to the appellate Court having jurisdiction, with notice to the parties, transfer of pending applications including condonation of delay, and an endeavour at expeditious disposal; the appellant was permitted to amend the cause-title. No observations were made on the merits; all contentions left open. Appeal disposed of.