As per the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial, a complainant-victim must file an appeal under Section 372 CrPC. The High Court held this appeal under Section 378 CrPC is not maintainable and transferred it to the Sessions Court.
The appeal was transferred to the jurisdictional Sessions Court for further proceedings.
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:35389 CRL.A No. 2155 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2155 OF 2016 (A)
BETWEEN:
M/S. NIKITHA FACADE SYSTEMS
NO.766/A, 16TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE, MICO LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 560 076. REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. ROLAND JOSEPH.
Digitally signed by SUSHMA LAKSHMI B S Location: High Court of Karnataka
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
…APPELLANT
M/S. AMITHYST HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR, MR. D. V. HARISH, NO.8, KAMARAJA ROAD, COMMERCIAL STREET JUNCTION, BANGALORE – 560 042.
HC-KAR
REGISTERED OFFICE AT
DAVANAM PLAZA, OPPOSITE MADIWALA POLICE STATION, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 068. REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR, MR. D. V. HARISH.
…RESPONDENT
(BY Ms. BHAVANA G. K., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 28.10.2016, PASSED BY THE XV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT AT BENGALURU, IN C.C.NO.2892/2013, ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
NC: 2026:KHC:35389 CRL.A No. 2155 of 2016
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
“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.”
1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320
NC: 2026:KHC:35389 CRL.A No. 2155 of 2016
HC-KAR
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.
HC-KAR
the liberty to carry out the amendment in the cause title and
also the provisions thereof.
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.
Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE
NM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.Referred¶33
Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. _1_ 2025 SCC Online SC 1320 · Who else cites this
M/s. Nikitha Facade Systems
M/s. Amithyst Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.
S Rachaiyah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
