Mr Ganesh Shetti Vs Mr Prashanth P S — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

Mr Ganesh Shetti Vs Mr Prashanth P S — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal transferred to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court; parties directed to appear there on 19.08.2026 without further notice; Registry to transmit the entire appeal papers including the appeal memo; counsel for the appellant at liberty to amend the cause title and the provisions thereof; for statistical purposes the appeal stands disposed of, and pending I.A., if any, is likewise disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal appeal filed by the complainant (who is the victim) under s.378(4) Cr.P.C. against the acquittal judgment is maintainable before the High Court, in view of the ruling in Celestium Financial that a victim-complainant must instead invoke the proviso to s.372 CrPC before the jurisdictional Sessions Court.

Court's answer

Adopting the ruling in Celestium Financial (2025 SCC Online SC 1320), this Court holds that the complainant, being the victim of the offence, has to file the appeal against the order of acquittal before the jurisdictional Sessions Court by invoking Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Ratio / Principle

An appeal filed by the complainant against an order of acquittal is not maintainable before this Court.

Key takeaways

Since this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits, the appeal is transferred to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Complainant-appellant (Ganesh Shetti) sought reversal of an acquittal dated 17.11.2018 in C.C.No.15620/2017 (s.138 Negotiable Instruments Act) passed by the learned VI Addl. Small Causes Judge and XXXI A.C.M.M., Bangalore, through CRL.A No. 2229 of 2022 filed under s.378(4) Cr.P.C. Relying on Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 SCC Online SC 1320), which holds that a victim-complainant may appeal under the proviso to s.372 CrPC before the Sessions Court, the High Court held that the appeal by the complainant against acquittal is not maintainable before it; having no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits, it transferred the appeal to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court, directed the parties to appear there on 19.08.2026 without further notice, ordered transmission of the entire appeal papers including the appeal memo, and permitted counsel to amend the cause title and provisions. The appeal, and any pending I.A., stand disposed of for statistical purposes.

1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36557 CRL.A No. 2229 of 2022

CNR: KAHC010588912022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2229 OF 2022 (A)

BETWEEN:

MR. GANESH SHETTI, S/O. LATE H. D. SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, SRI. SHARADA DEVI VIDYA SAMSTHE, NO.68/31, 10^TH CROSS, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, BHARATHI LAYOUT, S.G. PALYA, BENGALURU – 560 029. (BY SRI. ADINARAYAN., ADVOCATE)

…APPELLANT

AND:

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

MR. PRASHANTH P. S, NO.54-6/1, 5^TH CROSS, 2^ND MAIN, BALAJINAGAR, S.G. PALYA, BENGALURU – 560 029.

…RESPONDENT ----

(BY SRI. ABHINAY Y. T., ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/S PRAYING TO MAY BE PLEASED TO A. AFTER PERUSING THE RECORDS, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL ORDER DATED 17.11.2018, IN C.C.NO.15620/2017, PASSED BY THE LEARNED VI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXXI A.C.M.M. AT BANGALORE, CONSEQUENTLY, CONVICT THE ACCUSED-RESPONDENT FOR

NC: 2026:KHC:36557 CRL.A No. 2229 of 2022

2 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010588912022

THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant

being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.

However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.¹ , held in paragraph No.10 as under:

“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

1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:36557 CRL.A No. 2229 of 2022

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010588912022

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.”

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.

In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex 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.

The parties shall appear before the jurisdictional Appellate Court / Sessions Court on 19.08 .2026 , without further notice of the concerned Court.

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:36557 CRL.A No. 2229 of 2022

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010588912022

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

The learned counsel for the appellant shall have the liberty to carry out the amendment in the cause title and also the provisions thereof.

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

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.: 1 Sl No.: 24