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) 438470

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
G BASAVARAJA
SRI C T JANARDHAN – Appellant
Versus
SMT V G LALITHAMMA – Respondent
CRL.A 582/2019



HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 582 OF 2019 (A)

C/W

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1207 OF 2019

IN CRL.A No. 582/2019

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. C T JANARDHAN

AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,

S/O LATE N. THAMMAIAH R/A NO 713, 4TH CROSS,

1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE,

CHANDRA LAYOUT,

BENGALURU - 560072.

…APPELLANT

Di gitally

(BY SRI. PRADEEP H S., ADVOCATE)

signed by

DHAKSHAYINI

R

Location: High

AND:

Court of

Karnataka

1. SMT. V G LALITHAMMA

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

W/O SRI C N NANJEGOWDA,

LALITHA KRUPA,

RAGHAVENDRA SAW MILL ROAD,

GAYATHRI EXTENSION,

CHANNARAYAPATNA- 573116.

HASSAN DISTRICT

ALSO AT

SMT. V G LALITHAMMA

HC-KAR AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, W/O SRI C N NANJEGOWDA NANDISH PARK, NO.001, A BLOCK, 19TH CROSS, BANDAPPA GARDEN, MUTHYALA NAGAR, J P NAGAR, BENGALURU - 5600054 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B M MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE AND SMT. VEENA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 01.02.2019, PASSED BY THE XXII A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.28565/2017, ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF THE N.I ACT.

IN CRL.A NO. 1207/2019 BETWEEN:

1. SRI. C T JANARDHAN AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, S/O LATE N THAMMAIAH, R/AT NO.713, 4TH CROSS, IST STAGE, IST PHASE, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560072 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP H S., ADVOCATE)

HC-KAR AND:

1. SMT. V G LALITHAMMA AGED ABOUT YEARS, W/O SRI C N NANJEGOWDA, LALITHA KRUPA,.

RAGHAVENDRA SAW MILL ROAD, GAYATHRI EXTENSION, CHANNARAYAPATNA-573116 HASSAN DISTRICT.

ALSO AT NANDISH PARK NO.001, "A" BLOCK, 19TH CROSS, BANDAPPA GARDEN, MUTHYALA NAGAR, J P NAGAR, BENGALURU-560054 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B M MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE AND SRI. VEENA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 02.05.2019, PASSED BY THE XIII A.C.M.M., BENGALURU CITY IN C.C.NO.1980/2018, ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF THE N.I ACT.

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

HC-KAR 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 passed in CC No.28565/2017 dated 01.02.2019 by the XXII Additional C.M.M., Bengaluru and CC.No.1980/2018 dated 02.05.2019 by the XIII Additional C.M.M., 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 these 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 App

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