Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9280
CRL.A No. 692 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 691 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.692 OF 2015 (A)
C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 691 OF 2015
IN CRL.A No. 692/2015
BETWEEN:
1. M GANESH PRABHU
S/O LATE SRI M.V.PRABHU,
R/O NO.001, BLOCK I, RMV CLUSTERS
II PHASE, LOTTEGOLOHALLI
BANGALORE – 560 092
AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
TH
R/O NO.27, 4 MAIN,
AMAR JYOTHI LAYOUT, SANJAYNAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 094.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI R GOPALA KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI AARON R RAO
S/O SRI I.R.RAO,
2.
SMT NAGARATHNA AARON RAO
W/O SRI AARON R.RAO,
BOTH R/O NO.139, SAI LOTUS COLONY
NEAR BMTC DEPOT
RAJA RAJESHWARI NAGAR
BANGALORE -560 91
AND BOTH PRESENTLY
R/O NO.101, SEREMENT COMPLEX,
BEHIND HASHIWAR POLICE STATION,
Digitally
signed by R
MANJUNATHA
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9280
CRL.A No. 692 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 691 of 2015
HC-KAR
JOGESWARI WEST,
MUMBAI-400 079.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
10.4.2015 PASSED BY THE XXII A.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN
C.C.No.10297/2009 - ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF
N.I.ACT.
IN CRL.A NO. 691/2015
BETWEEN:
M GANESH PRABHU
S/O LATE SRI M V PRABHU,
TH
R/NO.27, 4 MAIN,
AMAR JYOTHI LAYOUT,
SANJAYNAGAR
BANGALORE-560 094
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R GOPALA KRISHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI AARON R RAO
S/O SRI I R RAO,
2. SMT.NAGARATHNA AARON RAO
W/O SRI AARON R. RAO,
BOTH PRESENTLY
R/O NO.101, SEREMET COMPLEX,
BEHIND HASHIWAR POLICE STATION
JOGESWARI WEST,
MUMBAI-400 079
...RESPONDENTS
THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.4.2015,
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9280
CRL.A No. 692 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 691 of 2015
HC-KAR
PASSED BY THE 22 ACMM, BANGALORE, IN
C.C.NO.10298/2009 - ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF
N.I. ACT.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. These appeals are filed by the
appellant/complainant being aggrieved by the Judgment of
acquittal dated 10.04.2015 passed in C.C.No.10297/2009 and
c.c.No.10298/2009 by the XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru City (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 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
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9280
CRL.A No. 692 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 691 of 2015
HC-KAR
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
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 these
appeals 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
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9280
CRL.A No. 692 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 691 of 2015
HC-KAR
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
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
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9280
CRL.A No. 692 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 691 of 2015
HC-KAR
(supra) has been relied upon by this Court, as well as other
High Courts across the country.
5. Considering the above, it is deemed fit that these
appeals 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;
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9280
CRL.A No. 692 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 691 of 2015
HC-KAR
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;
iv. Considering the matter has been pending for
considerable time, the Appellate Court is
requested to make an endeavour to dispose of
the matters 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 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.
6. In the light of the above observation and directions,
appeals stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
MR
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1
NC: 2026:KHC:9280
CRL.A No. 692 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 691 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.692 OF 2015 (A)
C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 691 OF 2015
IN CRL.A No. 692/2015
BETWEEN:
1. M GANESH PRABHU
S/O LATE SRI M.V.PRABHU,
R/O NO.001, BLOCK I, RMV CLUSTERS
II PHASE, LOTTEGOLOHALLI
BANGALORE – 560 092
AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
TH
R/O NO.27, 4 MAIN,
AMAR JYOTHI LAYOUT, SANJAYNAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 094.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI R GOPALA KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI AARON R RAO
S/O SRI I.R.RAO,
2.
SMT NAGARATHNA AARON RAO
W/O SRI AARON R.RAO,
BOTH R/O NO.139, SAI LOTUS COLONY
NEAR BMTC DEPOT
RAJA RAJESHWARI NAGAR
BANGALORE -560 91
AND BOTH PRESENTLY
R/O NO.101, SEREMENT COMPLEX,
BEHIND HASHIWAR POLICE STATION,
Digitally
signed by R
MANJUNATHA
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9280
CRL.A No. 692 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 691 of 2015
HC-KAR
JOGESWARI WEST,
MUMBAI-400 079.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
10.4.2015 PASSED BY THE XXII A.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN
C.C.No.10297/2009 - ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF
N.I.ACT.
IN CRL.A NO. 691/2015
BETWEEN:
M GANESH PRABHU
S/O LATE SRI M V PRABHU,
TH
R/NO.27, 4 MAIN,
AMAR JYOTHI LAYOUT,
SANJAYNAGAR
BANGALORE-560 094
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R GOPALA KRISHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI AARON R RAO
S/O SRI I R RAO,
2. SMT.NAGARATHNA AARON RAO
W/O SRI AARON R. RAO,
BOTH PRESENTLY
R/O NO.101, SEREMET COMPLEX,
BEHIND HASHIWAR POLICE STATION
JOGESWARI WEST,
MUMBAI-400 079
...RESPONDENTS
THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.4.2015,
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9280
CRL.A No. 692 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 691 of 2015
HC-KAR
PASSED BY THE 22 ACMM, BANGALORE, IN
C.C.NO.10298/2009 - ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF
N.I. ACT.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. These appeals are filed by the
appellant/complainant being aggrieved by the Judgment of
acquittal dated 10.04.2015 passed in C.C.No.10297/2009 and
c.c.No.10298/2009 by the XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru City (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 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
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9280
CRL.A No. 692 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 691 of 2015
HC-KAR
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
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 these
appeals 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
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9280
CRL.A No. 692 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 691 of 2015
HC-KAR
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
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
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9280
CRL.A No. 692 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 691 of 2015
HC-KAR
(supra) has been relied upon by this Court, as well as other
High Courts across the country.
5. Considering the above, it is deemed fit that these
appeals 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;
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9280
CRL.A No. 692 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 691 of 2015
HC-KAR
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;
iv. Considering the matter has been pending for
considerable time, the Appellate Court is
requested to make an endeavour to dispose of
the matters 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 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.
6. In the light of the above observation and directions,
appeals stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
MR
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1