Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8577
CRL.A No. 2369 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2369 OF 2023 (A)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI VENKATESH R
S/O LATE D. RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCC: REAL ESTATE BUSINESS
R/AT: NO.10, SUBHAS NAGAR ‘A’ BLOCK
BEGUR POST AND HOBLI,
BANGALORE-560 100.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHIKKANAGOUDAR L.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI B.L. JAYAPRAKASH
S/O LATE LAKSHMANA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCC: SURVEYOR AND SHARES TRADING BUSINESS,
ST
R/AT: NO.71, ‘SHRUTHI’, 1 FLOOR,
ND RD
2 CROSS, 3 MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR,
INCOME TAX LAYOUT, ATTIGUPPE,
BANGALORE-560040.
…RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B
M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(4) CR.PC PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20.10.2023 PASSED
IN C.C.NO.51238/2023 BY THE LEARNED XIV ADDITIONAL
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYOHALL UNIT,
BANGALORE CITY AND ETC.
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8577
CRL.A No. 2369 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant
being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 20.10.2023
passed in CC No.51238/2023 by the XIV Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (for short
"the trial Court").
2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
CELESTIUM FINANCIAL v. A GNANASEKARAN ETC. reported in
N INE
2025 SCC O L SC 1320, at paragraph 10 of the judgment,
has observed as under:
" 10. As already noted, the proviso to Section 372
of CrPC 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 victim of an offence has the right to
prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of
CrPC, irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not.
Even if the victim of an offence is a complainant, he can
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8577
CRL.A No. 2369 of 2023
HC-KAR
still proceed under the proviso to Section 372 and need
not advert to sub-section (4) of Section 378 of Cr.PC. "
3. In the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's 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.
4. Similar view has been taken by the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in CHARBEL INDIA V. STATE OF ANDHRA
N INE
PRADESH reported in 2025 SCC O L AP 2815; by the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh in MANORAMA KANKANE v.
NARENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA rendered in Criminal Appeal
rd
No.5910 of 2025 decided on 03 July, 2025; and in the case of
M/S. LATA KISAN SEWA KENDRA v. PRITAM SINGH reported in
2025 SCC O N L INE MP 4818; and in SMT. URMIT MADRAH v.
SAMARPAN JAIN rendered Criminal Appeal No. 11872 of 2022
st
decided on 21 July, 2025; the decision of High Court of
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8577
CRL.A No. 2369 of 2023
HC-KAR
Chattisgarh in NEELAM SAHU v. NARADNAGWANSHI rendered
th
;
in ACQA No. 340 of 2018 decided on 16 July, 2025 and in
SMT. KIRTI KURIAN v. AJAY SINGH rendered in ACQA No. 198
th
of 2019 decided on 16 July, 2025; the judgment of this Court
in the case of SIDAGONDAPPA v. SHAFI AHAMAD rendered in
st
CRL.A. No. 20021/2018 decided on 31 July, 2025 and in SRI
T.H. LENKAPPA v. SRI SANJAY AND ANOTHER rendered in
rd
Criminal Appeal No.146 of 2015 decided on 23 July, 2025; the
decision of High Court of Delhi in the case of D.K. ASSOCIATES
v. SHANKAR AND ANOTHER rendered in Criminal Appeal
th
No.694 of 2016 decided on 13 November, 2025 and the
decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of M/S. ANANYA ENTERPRISES v. SRI G.S.
GOPALAKRISHNA rendered in Criminal Appeal No.100171 of
th
2016 decided on 24 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.
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8577
CRL.A No. 2369 of 2023
HC-KAR
5. Considering the above, it is deemed fit that the
present appeal be transferred to the concerned appellate Court
of Sessions and be considered as an appeal under the proviso
to Section 413 of BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 372 of Cr.PC)
and numbered accordingly. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following:
O R D E R
i. Registry is directed to transfer the entire
record of the case, including the requisitioned
copies of the trial court Records, to the
concerned Principal District & Sessions Judge,
who may assign it to the concerned Appellate
Court having the jurisdiction and for which
purpose, it would be listed before the Principal
District & Sessions Judge;
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;
iii. In case there are applications pending for
condonation of delay or any other pending
applications, the same also be transferred to
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8577
CRL.A No. 2369 of 2023
HC-KAR
be considered by the learned Judge of
transferee Court, in accordance with law;
iv. Considering the fact that 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;
v. The appellant is permitted to carry out
necessary amendment in the cause-title and
also the provisions thereof;
vi. It is made clear that this Court has not made
any observation 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.
6. In the light of the above observation and directions,
appeal stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
MBM
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17
NC: 2026:KHC:8577
CRL.A No. 2369 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2369 OF 2023 (A)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI VENKATESH R
S/O LATE D. RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCC: REAL ESTATE BUSINESS
R/AT: NO.10, SUBHAS NAGAR ‘A’ BLOCK
BEGUR POST AND HOBLI,
BANGALORE-560 100.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHIKKANAGOUDAR L.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI B.L. JAYAPRAKASH
S/O LATE LAKSHMANA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCC: SURVEYOR AND SHARES TRADING BUSINESS,
ST
R/AT: NO.71, ‘SHRUTHI’, 1 FLOOR,
ND RD
2 CROSS, 3 MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR,
INCOME TAX LAYOUT, ATTIGUPPE,
BANGALORE-560040.
…RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B
M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(4) CR.PC PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20.10.2023 PASSED
IN C.C.NO.51238/2023 BY THE LEARNED XIV ADDITIONAL
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYOHALL UNIT,
BANGALORE CITY AND ETC.
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8577
CRL.A No. 2369 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant
being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 20.10.2023
passed in CC No.51238/2023 by the XIV Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (for short
"the trial Court").
2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
CELESTIUM FINANCIAL v. A GNANASEKARAN ETC. reported in
N INE
2025 SCC O L SC 1320, at paragraph 10 of the judgment,
has observed as under:
" 10. As already noted, the proviso to Section 372
of CrPC 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 victim of an offence has the right to
prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of
CrPC, irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not.
Even if the victim of an offence is a complainant, he can
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8577
CRL.A No. 2369 of 2023
HC-KAR
still proceed under the proviso to Section 372 and need
not advert to sub-section (4) of Section 378 of Cr.PC. "
3. In the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's 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.
4. Similar view has been taken by the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in CHARBEL INDIA V. STATE OF ANDHRA
N INE
PRADESH reported in 2025 SCC O L AP 2815; by the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh in MANORAMA KANKANE v.
NARENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA rendered in Criminal Appeal
rd
No.5910 of 2025 decided on 03 July, 2025; and in the case of
M/S. LATA KISAN SEWA KENDRA v. PRITAM SINGH reported in
2025 SCC O N L INE MP 4818; and in SMT. URMIT MADRAH v.
SAMARPAN JAIN rendered Criminal Appeal No. 11872 of 2022
st
decided on 21 July, 2025; the decision of High Court of
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8577
CRL.A No. 2369 of 2023
HC-KAR
Chattisgarh in NEELAM SAHU v. NARADNAGWANSHI rendered
th
;
in ACQA No. 340 of 2018 decided on 16 July, 2025 and in
SMT. KIRTI KURIAN v. AJAY SINGH rendered in ACQA No. 198
th
of 2019 decided on 16 July, 2025; the judgment of this Court
in the case of SIDAGONDAPPA v. SHAFI AHAMAD rendered in
st
CRL.A. No. 20021/2018 decided on 31 July, 2025 and in SRI
T.H. LENKAPPA v. SRI SANJAY AND ANOTHER rendered in
rd
Criminal Appeal No.146 of 2015 decided on 23 July, 2025; the
decision of High Court of Delhi in the case of D.K. ASSOCIATES
v. SHANKAR AND ANOTHER rendered in Criminal Appeal
th
No.694 of 2016 decided on 13 November, 2025 and the
decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of M/S. ANANYA ENTERPRISES v. SRI G.S.
GOPALAKRISHNA rendered in Criminal Appeal No.100171 of
th
2016 decided on 24 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.
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8577
CRL.A No. 2369 of 2023
HC-KAR
5. Considering the above, it is deemed fit that the
present appeal be transferred to the concerned appellate Court
of Sessions and be considered as an appeal under the proviso
to Section 413 of BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 372 of Cr.PC)
and numbered accordingly. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following:
O R D E R
i. Registry is directed to transfer the entire
record of the case, including the requisitioned
copies of the trial court Records, to the
concerned Principal District & Sessions Judge,
who may assign it to the concerned Appellate
Court having the jurisdiction and for which
purpose, it would be listed before the Principal
District & Sessions Judge;
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;
iii. In case there are applications pending for
condonation of delay or any other pending
applications, the same also be transferred to
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8577
CRL.A No. 2369 of 2023
HC-KAR
be considered by the learned Judge of
transferee Court, in accordance with law;
iv. Considering the fact that 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;
v. The appellant is permitted to carry out
necessary amendment in the cause-title and
also the provisions thereof;
vi. It is made clear that this Court has not made
any observation 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.
6. In the light of the above observation and directions,
appeal stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
MBM
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17