Disposed

Mohammed Haneef v. Joseph John Rodrigues

Karnataka HC8 Jan 2026CRL.A/523/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A complainant's criminal appeal against acquittal for cheque dishonour was pending before the High Court. Following the Supreme Court ruling that a complainant is a victim entitled to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, the court disposed of the appeal by directing its transfer to the Sessions/appellate court to be treated as such an appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of; record directed to be transferred to the concerned appellate court to be numbered as an appeal under proviso to Section 413 BNSS; amendment of cause-title permitted; rights left op

Mohammed Haneef Vs Joseph John Rodrigues — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:1043 CRL.A No. 523 of 2020

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 523 OF 2020 (A)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MOHAMMED HANEEF AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, S/O KHADER SHARIFF, NO.1/5, GROUND FLOOR, CRESCENT PLAZA, DINNUR MAIN ROAD, OPPOSITE PUSHPANJALI THEATRE, R.T.NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560032 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MUSHTAQ AHMED, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶10

JOSEPH JOHN RODRIGUES Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, B (FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN), Location: High Court of NO.95, 1^ST FLOOR, Karnataka KEERTHI JOSEPH NILAYAM, AISHWARYA COMFORTS, B. HANUMANTHA NAGAR, NEAR VANI PUBLIC SCHOOL, BILISHIVALE, BENGALURU - 560 077

¶11

…RESPONDENT

¶12

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF

¶13

¶14

NC: 2026:KHC:1043 CRL.A No. 523 of 2020

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

ACQUITTAL DATED 19.10.2019, PASSED BY THE XV A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU CITY IN C.C.NO.5683/2018, ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF THE N.I ACT.

¶17

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal is filed by the

¶20

appellant/complainant being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 19.10.2019 passed in CC.No.5683/2018 by the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City (for short "the trial Court").

¶21

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:

¶22

" 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 must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the

¶23

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1043 CRL.A No. 523 of 2020

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

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. "

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

Similar view has been taken by the High Court

¶29

of Andhra Pradesh in CHARBEL INDIA V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reported in 2025 SCC OnLine AP 2815;

¶30

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1043 CRL.A No. 523 of 2020

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

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 rendered in Criminal Appeal No.694 of 2016 decided on

¶33

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1043 CRL.A No. 523 of 2020

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

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.

¶36

Considering the above, it is deemed fit that the present appeal be transferred to the concerned appellate Court 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:

¶37

O R D E R

¶38

i. Registry is directed to transfer the entire record of the case, including the requisitioned copies of the trial court Records, to the concerned Court, who may

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:1043 CRL.A No. 523 of 2020

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

assign it to the concerned Appellate Court having the jurisdiction and for which purpose, it would be listed before the concerned Court;

¶43

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;

¶44

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;

¶45

iv. Considering the matter has been pending for considerable time, the Appellate Court is requested to make an endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible;

¶46

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

¶47

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:1043 CRL.A No. 523 of 2020

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

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.

¶50

In the light of the above observation and

¶51

directions, appeal stands disposed of .

¶52

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶53

PHM

¶54

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4

Mohammed Haneef v. Joseph John Rodrigues

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Haneef v. Joseph John Rodrigues

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Karnataka Vs Mahamed Rafiq

M/S Kaveri Seeds Company Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S Krish Dhan

Sri K R Krishnegowda Vs State by

K Meenakshi Vs Raghupathi

M/S Rishab Electrical Industrial Supplier Vs Royal Constructions

Sri. S. Nagabhushan Vs Sri. H. S. Keshava Murthy