SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 148766

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
G BASAVARAJA
SRI. ASHOK KUMAR. N – Appellant
Versus
SRI. SHIVANNA – Respondent
CRL.A 1344/2018



HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1344 OF 2018

C/W

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 486 OF 2021

IN CRL.A No. 1344/2018

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. ASHOK KUMAR N

S/O. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

FLAT NO. 401, MEENAKSHI PARADISE,

2ND MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, HOSAPALYA,

PEEKAYAM LAYOUT, H.S.R. SUB DIVISION,

BENGALURU-560 068.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY C.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. SHIVANNA

Digitally signed by

LAKSHMINARAYAN N S/O. DYAVARAYYA,

Location: HIGH COURT

OF KARNATAK A AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

NO. 93, MATHRU KRUPA, (JAYAMMA ANJANAPPA),

VISHWANNA LAYOUT,

BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE,

TUMKUR-572 102.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. RAMESH ANANTHAN.,ADVOCATE)

CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR

THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15.05.2018 PASSED BY THE XIV ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN

HC-KAR C.C.NO.51876/2017 - ACQUITTIG THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT.

IN CRL.A NO. 486/2021 BETWEEN:

1. MR. ASHOK KUMAR S/O NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.401, MEENAKSHI PARADISE, 2ND MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, HOSAPALYA, PEEKAYAM LAYOUT, H.S.R. SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU-560068.

...APPELLANT (BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY C.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. MR. SHIVANNA D S/O DYAVARAYYA AGED 44 YEARS, EARLIER R/AT NO.93, MATHRU KRUPA (JAYAMMA ANJANAPPA)

VISHWANNA LAYOUT, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, TUMKUR-572 102.

PRESENTLY R/AT 4TH CROSS, SADAHSHIVANAGAR, TUMAKURU (CMC) WARD 11, TUMKUR MELEKOTE, TUMKURU CITY AND DISTRICT-572 102 ...RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.)

CRL.A FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.02.2021 PASSED BY THE XXXIV ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.58111/2016 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I.

ACT BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.A.

HC-KAR 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 12th February, 2021 passed in CC No.58111 of 2016 by the XXXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (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 HC-KAR 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 the 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 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top