[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
S. Rajendran vs S P Automatics on 26 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:12134
CRL.A No. 1858 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1858 OF 2025 (A)
BETWEEN:
S. RAJENDRAN
S/O SELVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO.78/61-1, 8TH MAIN,
SHANKARAPPA GARDEN,
MAGADI ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 023.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MOHAMED KHAN.A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
S P AUTOMATICS
REP BY PALANI BABU
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
by
MARKONAHALLI NO.3, 12TH 'A' MAIN,
RAMU PRIYA GUBBANNA ESTATE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGARA,
KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 010.
...RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 419(4) OF BNSS,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER/JUDGMENT XXII ADDL.
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU (SCCH-24) DATED 03.02.2025
PASSED IN C.C.NO.4070/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:12134
CRL.A No. 1858 of 2025
HC-KAR
OF N.I ACT AS PRAYED FOR IN THE COMPLAINT, BY ALLOWING
THE APPEAL AND ETC.
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 03.02.2025 passed in C.C.No.4070/2022 by the
XXII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City (SCCH-
24) (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 Cr.P.C. was inserted in the statue book only
with effect from 31.12.2009. The object and
reason for such insertion must be realised and
NC: 2026:KHC:12134
HC-KAR
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 Cr.
P.C., 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. P.C."
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
NC: 2026:KHC:12134
HC-KAR
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. URMIT MADRAH 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 in
the case of SIDAGONDAPPA v. SHAFI AHAMAD 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
NC: 2026:KHC:12134
HC-KAR
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.P.C) 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
NC: 2026:KHC:12134
HC-KAR
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: 2026:KHC:12134
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
BKN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30
