[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Umesh Y vs Sri Jnanapraksah on 2 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:50542
CRL.A No. 2389 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2389 OF 2025 (A)
BETWEEN:
1. UMESH Y
SON OF YALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
BELURU TOWN, GURAPPA GOWDARA BEEDI,
BELURU, HASSAN DISTRICT
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.R. HIREMATHAD., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI JNANAPRAKSAH
SON OF ANTHONAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
DASAUPURA VILLAGE,
NUGGEHALLI HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALLUK.
HASSAN DISTRICT-573201.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by (NOTICE NOT ORDER IN R/O RESPONDENT)
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA CRL.A FILED U/S 378(4) CR.PC (FILED U/S 419(4) BNSS)
BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SETTING ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02.04.2024 IN
C.C.NO.466/2021 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
J.M.F.C AT BELUR, HASSAN AND RECORD THE CONVICTION OF
THE RESPONDENT AND TO PUNISH HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LAW FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:50542
CRL.A No. 2389 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant
being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 02nd April,
2024 passed in CC No.466 of 2021 by the Senior Civil Judge &
JMFC, Belur (for short "the trial Court").
2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
CELESTIUM FINANCIAL v. A GNANASEKARAN ETC. reported in
2025 SCC ONLINE 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
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
NC: 2025:KHC:50542
HC-KAR
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
PRADESH reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE AP 2815; by the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh in MANORAMA KANKANE v.
NARENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA rendered in Criminal Appeal
No.5910 of 2025 decided on 03rd July, 2025; and in the case of
LATE KISAN SEWA KENDRA v. PRITAM SINGH reported in 2025
SCC ONLINE MP 4818; and in SMT. URMITMADRAH v.
SAMARPAN JAIN rendered Criminal Appeal No. 11872 of 2022
decided on 21st July, 2025; the decision of High Court of
Chattisgarh in NEELAM SAHU v. NARADNAGWANSHI rendered
in ACQA No. 340 of 2018 decided on 16th July, 2025; and in
SMT. KIRTI KURIAN v. AJAY SINGH rendered in ACQA No. 198
of 2019 decided on 16th July, 2025; the judgment of this Court
NC: 2025:KHC:50542
HC-KAR
in the case of SIDAGONDAPPA v. SHAFIAHAMAD rendered in
CRL.A. No. 20021/2018 decided on 31st July, 2025 and in SRI
T.H. LENKAPPA v. SRI SANJAY AND ANOTHER rendered in
Criminal Appeal No.146 of 2015 decided on 23rd July, 2025; the
decision of High Court of Delhi in the case of D.K. ASSOCIATES
v. SHANKAR AND ANOTHER rendered in Criminal Appeal
No.694 of 2016 decided on 13th 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
2016 decided on 24th 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. 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)
NC: 2025:KHC:50542
HC-KAR
and numbered accordingly. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
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
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 matter as expeditiously as possible;
NC: 2025:KHC:50542
HC-KAR
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,
appeal stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28
