T Ravichandra Vs Smt v Sandhya — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

T Ravichandra Vs Smt v Sandhya — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of by directing: transfer of the entire record (including requisitioned trial-court copies) to the concerned Principal District & Sessions Judge for assignment to the jurisdictionally competent Appellate Court; renumbering/consideration as an appeal under the proviso to S. 413 BNSS, 2023; issuance of Court notice to both parties; transfer of pending applications (including condonation of delay); expedited disposal; and permission to amend the cause-title.

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should itself hear the complainant's appeal against acquittal filed under S. 378(4) Cr.P.C., or whether, the complainant being a 'victim' under the clarified legal position, the appeal should instead lie before the Sessions Court under the proviso to S. 372 Cr.P.C. (now proviso to S. 413, BNSS 2023).

Court's answer

In the light of the Supreme Court's clarification in Celestium Financial, this Court concludes that the appellant, being the complainant under S. 138 NI Act, is considered a victim and is entitled to file the appeal against the judgment of acquittal before the Sessions Court.

Ratio / Principle

The present appeal is deemed fit to be transferred to the concerned appellate Court of Sessions and to be considered and numbered as an appeal under the proviso to S. 413 of BNSS, 2023 (formerly S. 372 of Cr.PC).

Key takeaways

This Court has not made any observation as to the merits of the case; all rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be agitated before the Court concerned.obiter¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal No. 2442 of 2024 (High Court of Karnataka, G Basavaraja J., oral judgment dated 12 February 2026): the complainant T. Ravichandra appealed under S. 378(4) Cr.P.C. against the acquittal dated 25.10.2024 of respondent/accused V. Sandhya in C.C.No.14134/2022 (offence punishable under S. 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881) before the Court of Small Causes Judge and ACJM, Bengaluru. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Celestium Financial v. A Gnanasekaran, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1320 (a victim, even if also the complainant, may appeal under the proviso to S. 372 Cr.P.C. and need not invoke S. 378(4)), and noting cognate decisions of the Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Delhi High Courts and of benches of the Karnataka High Court (including Manorama Kankane, decided 03.07.2025; Urmit Madrah, 21.07.2025; Neelam Sahu and Kirti Kurian, 16.07.2025; Sidagondappa, 31.07.2025; Lenkappa, 23.07.2025; D.K. Associates, 13.11.2025; Ananya Enterprises, 24.11.2025), the Court held the complainant-appellant to be a 'victim' entitled to pursue the acquittal appeal before the Sessions Court, observing that hearing it in the High Court would deprive the parties of that further forum. The appeal was accordingly disposed of by directing the Registry to transfer the entire record to the Principal District & Sessions Judge for assignment to the competent Appellate Court and renumbering as an appeal under the proviso to S. 413, BNSS 2023 (formerly S. 372 Cr.P.C.), with Court notice to both parties, transfer of pending applications (including condonation of delay), a request for expeditious disposal, and liberty to amend the cause-title. No observation was made on the merits; all rights and contentions were left open.