Sri Parameshwara M L Vs Khagendra Constructions — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri Parameshwara M L Vs Khagendra Constructions — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of with directions: (i) Registry to transfer the entire record, including requisitioned trial court copies, to the concerned Principal District & Sessions Judge for assignment to the competent Appellate Court; (ii) transferee court to issue notice to both parties and proceed in accordance with law; (iii) pending applications, including condonation of delay, to stand transferred; (iv) Appellate Court requested to dispose of the matter expeditiously; (v) appellant permitted to amend the cause-title and provisions thereof; (vi) no observations on merits, all rights and contentions left open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the complainant's appeal against acquittal, filed in the High Court under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., ought instead to be pursued as an appeal by the 'victim' under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. (now the proviso to Section 413 of BNSS, 2023) before the Sessions Court.

Court's answer

The appellant, being the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is a victim entitled to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal before the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. (now the proviso to Section 413 of BNSS, 2023), per the Supreme Court's clarification in Celestium Financial.

Ratio / Principle

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.

Key takeaways

The present appeal is to be transferred to the concerned appellate Court of Sessions, to be considered as an appeal under the proviso to Section 413 of BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 372 of Cr.P.C.) and numbered accordingly.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal (CRL.A No. 2080 of 2022, decided 14.01.2026, G Basavaraja J, High Court of Karnataka) — Appeal by complainant under S.378(4) Cr.P.C. against acquittal dated 16.02.2022 in C.C. No.31104/2017 (S.138 NI Act case) tried by the XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. Following the Supreme Court's ruling in Celestium Financial v. A Gnanasekaran (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320) that a victim may appeal under the proviso to S.372 Cr.P.C. irrespective of being a complainant, the Court held that the complainant under S.138 NI Act is a victim entitled to appeal before the Sessions Court under the said proviso (now the proviso to S.413 BNSS, 2023), and that hearing the appeal in the High Court could deprive the parties of a further forum. Appeal disposed of with directions to transfer the record to the Principal District & Sessions Judge for assignment, numbering under the proviso to S.413 BNSS, notice to parties, and expeditious disposal; appellant permitted to amend the cause-title; no observations on merits, rights and contentions left open. Consistent decisions of the Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Delhi High Courts and coordinate benches of the Karnataka High Court noted.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:2306 CRL.A No. 2080 of 2022

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2080 OF 2022 (A)

BETWEEN:

SRI. PARAMESHWARA M L S/O. M.LINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.693, 23^rd CROSS, 23^rd MAIN, IDEAL HOMES, R R NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 098

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. BAGOJI VIJAYAKUMAR GURAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

KHAGENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS NO.146, 2 'E' CROSS ROAD, 3^RD BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU 560072

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. PRAKASH K

MR. PRAKASH K NO.146, 2 'E' CROSS ROAD, 3rd BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI 2nd STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 072 PROPRIETOR - KAHGENDRA CONSTRUCTION,

…RESPONDENTS

THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.02.2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE XXII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:2306 CRL.A No. 2080 of 2022

HC-KAR

MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU CITY IN C.C.NO.31104/2017 CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE C.C.NO.31104/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE XXII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU CITY.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant

being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 16.02.2022 passed in C.C. No.31104/2017 by the XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (for short "the trial Court").

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

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:2306 CRL.A No. 2080 of 2022

HC-KAR

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. 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. "

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

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.

Similar view has been taken by the High Court

of Andhra Pradesh in CHARBEL INDIA V. STATE OF

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:2306 CRL.A No. 2080 of 2022

HC-KAR

ANDHRA PRADESH reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE AP 2815; by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in MANORAMA KANKANE v. NARENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA rendered in Criminal Appeal No.5910 of 2025 decided on 03^rd 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 21^st July, 2025; the decision of High Court of Chattisgarh in NEELAM SAHU v. NARADNAGWANSHI rendered in ACQA No. 340 of 2018 decided on 16^th July, 2025; and in SMT. KIRTI KURIAN v. AJAY SINGH rendered in ACQA No. 198 of 2019 decided on 16^th July, 2025; the judgment of this Court in the case of SIDAGONDAPPA v. SHAFI AHAMAD rendered in CRL.A. No. 20021/2018 decided on 31^st July, 2025 and in SRI T.H. LENKAPPA v. SRI SANJAY AND ANOTHER rendered in Criminal Appeal No.146 of 2015 decided on 23^rd July, 2025; the decision of High Court of Delhi in the case of D.K. ASSOCIATES v. SHANKAR AND ANOTHER

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:2306 CRL.A No. 2080 of 2022

HC-KAR

rendered in Criminal Appeal No.694 of 2016 decided on 13^th November, 2025 and the decision rendered by the Coordinate 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 24^th 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.

Considering the above, it is deemed fit that the

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:

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:2306 CRL.A No. 2080 of 2022

HC-KAR

O R D E R

i. Registry is directed to transfer the entire record of the case, including the requisitioned copies of the trial court Records, to the concerned Principal District & Sessions Judge, who 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;

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;

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;

iv. Considering the matter has been pending for considerable time, the Appellate Court is requested to make an endeavour to

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:2306 CRL.A No. 2080 of 2022

HC-KAR

dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible;

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

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.

In the light of the above observation and

directions, appeal stands disposed of.

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

HJ

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4