Sri. Krishnamurthy R., Vs Sri. Aslam

SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY R, S/O REVANNASIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT VARAHA COLONY, JUNIOR COLLEGE BEHIND N.E.S. LAYOUT, MAGADI TOWN, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 571 511.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA G., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI. ASLAM, S/O MOHAMMED HIYAN UDDIN,

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:36558 CRL.A No. 710 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

CNR: KAHC010201852025

¶19

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.263, 22^ND WARD, 2^ND BLOCK, YARAB NAGARA, NEAR BELAL MAJID, RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 571 511.

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI. A.N. RADHA KRISHNA., ADVOCATE)

¶22

¶23

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/S PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 06.01.2025, IN C.C.NO.46/2020, PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION.138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 AND ETC.,

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶26

3 -

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:36558 CRL.A No. 710 of 2025

¶29

CNR: KAHC010201852025

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

“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.”

¶35

1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:36558 CRL.A No. 710 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

CNR: KAHC010201852025

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

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

¶42