Disposed¶35

Sri Chethan T v. Sri Chinnamada Naidu

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2026CRL.A/891/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.A No. 891 of 2026; High Court of Karnataka; S Rachaiah J.; S.138 NI Act cheque dishonour acquittal; maintainability of complainant's appeal under S.378(4) CrPC; proviso to S.372 CrPC; Celestium Financial 2025 SCC Online SC 1320; victim's right of appeal; transfer to jurisdictional Sessions Court; C.C. No.364/2019 Kollegala; appearance dated 30.06.2026; BNSS S.419(4).

What did the court decide?

Appeal transferred to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court; parties to appear before it on 30.06.2026 without further notice; Registry to transmit the entire appeal papers including the appeal memo; liberty to the appellant's counsel to amend the cause title and provisions; appeal disposed of for statistical purposes and pending I.A.s, if any, disposed of. ¶35

Sri Chethan T Vs Sri Chinnamada Naidu — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether an appeal by the complainant against a judgment of acquittal in a S.138 NI Act case is maintainable before the High Court under Section 378(4) CrPC, or whether the complainant, being the victim, must prefer the appeal before the jurisdictional Sessions Court by invoking Section 372 CrPC.

¶33

Court's answer

On a careful reading of Celestium Financial (2025 SCC Online SC 1320), 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.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

In view of the law laid down in Celestium Financial, the appeal by the complainant against the order of acquittal is not maintainable before this Court; since the Court has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits, it is transferred to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court.

¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 138 — Acquittal of accused by I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kollegala in C.C. No.364/2019 — Complainant's appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC against acquittal filed before the High Court — Held, following Celestium Financial (2025 SCC Online SC 1320), the victim-complainant must prefer the appeal against acquittal before the jurisdictional Sessions Court by invoking Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Appeal by the complainant against acquittal not maintainable before the High Court; Court had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits — Appeal transferred to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court; parties directed to appear on 30.06.2026; Registry to transmit the appeal papers; liberty to amend the cause title — Appeal disposed of for statistical purposes; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:26685 CRL.A No. 891 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 891 OF 2026 (A)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

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

¶10

SRI CHETHAN T S/O THIMMEGOWDA, NOW AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT MARIGUDI STREET, HANUR TOWN, KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT – 571 439.

¶11

(BY SRI. K A CHANDRASHEKARA., ADVOCATE)

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI CHINNAMADA NAIDU S/O RANGAIAH NAIDU, NOW AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:26685 CRL.A No. 891 of 2026

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

R/AT SANTHEPETE STREET, HANUR TOWN, KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT – 571 439.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

¶20

THIS CRL.A FILED U/S 378(4) CR.PC (FILED U/S 419(4) OF BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12/03/2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KOLLEGALA IN C.C. NO.364/2019 AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION.138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT AND COMPENSATE THE APPELLANT/ COMPLAINANT ADEQUATELY.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶23

¶24

NC: 2026:KHC:26685 CRL.A No. 891 of 2026

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.

¶28

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

¶29

“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.”

¶30

1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:26685 CRL.A No. 891 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

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.

¶36

The parties shall appear before the jurisdictional Appellate Court / Sessions Court on 30.06.2026 , without further notice of the concerned Court.

¶37