Karnataka High Court
Shri.Pundalik S/O Gundu Patil vs Shri.Sanjay S/O Maruti Chinchanekar on 11 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8648
CRL.A No. 100200 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 100199 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100200 OF 2018 (A)
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100199 OF 2018
IN CRL.A.NO.100200/2018:
BETWEEN:
SHRI PUNDALIK S/O. GUNDU PATIL,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. H.NO.580, PEERANWADI,
BELAGAVI-590001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. U.J HAVALDAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
SHRI SANJAY S/O. MARUTI CHINCHANEKAR,
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR Date:
2025.07.17
11:10:39
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
+0530
R/O. PLOT NO.503, RADHA GOVINDA APARTMENT,
S.V. ROAD, BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4)
OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT DATED
07.05.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN CRL.APPEAL NO.145/2018
THEREBY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
01.03.2018 PASSED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.1161/2017(OLD CC
NO.999/2011) ON THE FILE OF V-JMFC, BELAGAVI BY
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8648
CRL.A No. 100200 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 100199 of 2018
HC-KAR
ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NI ACT BY ALLOWING
THE TOP NOTED TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
IN CRL.A.NO.100199/2018:
BETWEEN:
SHRI YALLAPPA S/O. GUNDU PATIL,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. H.NO.580, PEERANWADI,
BELAGAVI-590001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. U.J HAVALDAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI PRAMODINI W/O. SANJAY CHINCHANEKAR,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. PLOT NO.503, RADHA GOVINDA PARK,
4TH FLOOR, PLOT NO. 720,
S.V. ROAD, BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4)
OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT DATED
07.05.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN CRL.APPEAL NO.146/2018
THEREBY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
01.03.2018 PASSED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.464/2017(OLD CC
NO.474/2011) ON THE FILE OF V-JMFC, BELAGAVI BY
ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NI ACT BY ALLOWING
THE TOP NOTED TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8648
CRL.A No. 100200 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 100199 of 2018
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
These two appeals arise out of common judgment passed
in Crl.A.Nos.145/2018 and 146/2018, dated 07.05.2018 by the
XI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi1, whereby the
First Appellate Court dismissed both the appeals as not
maintainable.
2. The short point for consideration in these appeals
that whether an appeal is maintainable before the Sessions
Court against the order of acquittal by the Magistrate Court for
the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act?
3. The First Appellate Court dismissed
Crl.A.No.145/2018 and Crl.A.No.146/2018 for the reason that
the appeals are not maintainable since the same are preferred
by the respective complainants against an order of acquittal
passed in CC.No.464/2017 and CC No.1161/2017 by V Addl.
JMFC, Belagavi. The learned First Appellate Court while
dismissing the appeal observed that the complainant in the
private complaint relating to proceedings under Section 138 of
the NI Act, cannot prefer appeal before the Sessions Court by
Hereinafter referred to as 'first appellate Court'
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8648
HC-KAR
treating himself/herself as victim under proviso to Section 372
of Cr.P.C. This position is clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran2 in
paragraph No.10 held as under:
"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 sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the CrPC."
4. As such, on perusal of law enunciated by the Apex
Court stated supra, it is clear that the victim of an offence has
the right to prefer an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C where
the appeal ordinarily lies, irrespective of whether he/she is a
complainant or not. Thus, I am of the considered view that the
impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is liable
to be set-aside and the matter requires to be remanded to the
First Appellate Court for fresh consideration on merits.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
2025 SCC Online SC 1320
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8648
HC-KAR
ORDER
a) The appeals in Crl.A.No.100200/2018
and Crl.A.No.100199/2018 are allowed;
b) The impugned common judgment dated
07.05.2018 passed in Crl.A.Nos.145 of
2018 and 146 of 2018 by the learned XI
Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Belagavi, are hereby set-aside;
c) The matter is remanded to the First
Appellate Court for consideration afresh
after issuance of notice to the respective
respondents; and
d) Since transaction is of the year 2011, the
first appellate Court is directed to
dispose of the appeals in
Crl.A.No.145/2018 and 146/2018 as
early as possible within an outer limit of
four months from the date of appearance
of the parties.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
JTR
CT:PA
