Sri H G Eshwar vs Sri H G Jayaram
2026 Latest Caselaw 75 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri H G Eshwar vs Sri H G Jayaram on 7 January, 2026

                                                   -1-
                                                                NC: 2026:KHC:938
                                                           CRL.A No. 851 of 2019


                       HC-KAR



                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                                DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

                                                BEFORE
                                THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 851 OF 2019 (378(Cr.PC) /
                                              419(BNSS))
                       BETWEEN:

                       1.    SRI H G ESHWAR
                             SON OF GANGAVEERANNA,
                             AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
                             RESIDIGN AT K.HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
                             KOTAHAGERE HOBLI,
                             KUNIGAL TALUK,
                             TUMKUR DISTRICT-572130.
                                                                    ...APPELLANT
                       (BY SRI. PUNITH C.,ADVOCATE)

                       AND:

                       1.    SRI H G JAYARAM
                             SON OF LATE BORAIAH,
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N             AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA                 RESIDING AT K.HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
                             KOTAGERE HOBLI,
                             KUNIGAL TALUK,
                             TUMKUR DISTRICT-572130.
                                                                  ...RESPONDENT
                       (BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA R NAIK.,ADVOCATE)

                            CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
                       THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND IMPUGNED ORDER OF
                       ACQUITTAL DATED 23.03.2019, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
                       CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT KUNIGAL IN C.C.NO.427/2017,
                       ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
                       P/U/S 138 OF THE N.I ACT.
                                  -2-
                                                   NC: 2026:KHC:938
                                            CRL.A No. 851 of 2019


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 23.03.2019

passed in C.C.NO.427/2017 by the Principal Civil Judge and

JMFC, Kunigal (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."

NC: 2026:KHC:938

HC-KAR

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

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

M/S. LATA 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

NC: 2026:KHC:938

HC-KAR

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 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

NC: 2026:KHC:938

HC-KAR

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:

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;

NC: 2026:KHC:938

HC-KAR

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;

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

DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63