Disposed¶35

Sri Jagadish G v. Smt Sapna M

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2026CRL.A/950/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, CRL.A No. 950 of 2024 (S Rachaiah, J., 05.03.2026): complainant's appeal u/s 378(4) CrPC against acquittal in S.138 NI Act case not maintainable before High Court; victim-complainant to appeal before Sessions Court u/s 372 CrPC per Celestium Financial (2025 SCC Online SC 1320); appeal transferred to Sessions Court, parties to appear 16.03.2026; disposed of for statistical purposes.

What did the court decide?

Appeal transferred to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court; parties directed to appear there on 16.03.2026 without further notice; Registry to transmit the entire appeal papers including appeal memos; liberty granted to the appellant's counsel to carry out amendment in the cause title and provisions thereof; appeal disposed of for statistical purposes. ¶35

Sri Jagadish G Vs Smt Sapna M — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether an appeal filed by the complainant under Section 378(4) CrPC against a judgment of acquittal is maintainable before the High Court, in view of the victim's right to appeal under Section 372 CrPC as held in Celestium Financial.

¶35

Court's answer

Following Celestium Financial (SC), 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

Ratio / Principle

An appeal by the complainant against an order of acquittal is not maintainable before the High Court; the High Court has no jurisdiction to decide such an appeal on merits.

¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under S.378(4) CrPC by the complainant against acquittal in a S.138 N.I. Act case (C.C.No.7301/2019, IV Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Mysuru) held not maintainable before the High Court. Relying on Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 SCC Online SC 1320, the Court held that the complainant, being the victim, must file the appeal against acquittal before the Jurisdictional Sessions Court by invoking Section 372 CrPC. Since the High Court had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits, it was transferred to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court; the parties were directed to appear on 16.03.2026 without further notice, the Registry was directed to transmit the entire appeal papers, and the appellant's counsel was given liberty to amend the cause title. For statistical purposes, the appeal stands disposed of.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:13532 CRL.A No. 950 of 2024

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

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

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 950 OF 2024 (A)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. JAGADISH G S/O GURUMALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT D.NO.58/1 OOTY MAIN ROAD, SGS ASHRAMA POST BHAIRAVESHWARANAGAR

¶9

MYSURU - 570 001.

¶10

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE (BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K, ADVOCATE) SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High AND: Court of Karnataka

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

SMT. SAPNA M W/O VASANTH KUMAR D/O MOHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEAWRS RESIDING AT D.NO. 955

¶13

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13532 CRL.A No. 950 of 2024

¶14

HC-KAR

¶15

BELAVATHA

¶16

MYSURU DISTRICT – 570 001.

¶17

AND ALSO R/AT C/O M. KEMPEGOWDA D.NO. 422, 3^RD CROSS DODDA OKKALAGERI (K.T. STREET) K.R. HOSPITAL ROAD MANDI MOHALLA MYSURU - 570 001.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. AJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(4) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02.03.2024 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MYSURU IN C.C.NO.7301/2019 AND CONVICT THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶23

¶24

NC: 2026:KHC:13532 CRL.A No. 950 of 2024

¶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

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:13532 CRL.A No. 950 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

On careful reading of the judgment of the 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.

¶35

In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Celestial 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 jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court.

¶36

The parties shall appear before the jurisdictional Appellate Court / Sessions Court on 16.03.2026 , without further notice of the concerned Court.

¶37