IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2087 OF 2023 (A)

BETWEEN:

K MEENAKSHI

W/O VINAYAKA V S

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

R/AT NO.20, TULASI NILAYA 2^ND CROSS, S B M COLONY,

BRINDAVAN NAGAR, MATTHIKERE,

BENGALURU-560054

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. ANANDA V.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

RAGHUPATHI

S/O DHARMAIAH

MAJOR IN AGE

R/AT SUBBAIAH MEDICAL COLLEGE,

HOLEBENNAVALLI,

Digitally signed by

LAKSHMINARAYAN N SHIVAMOGGA-577202

Location: High Court

of Karnataka

ALSO AT NAVULU BADAVANE

MALLIKARJUNA NAGAR,

SHIVAMOGA-577201

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR J M., ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING SET

ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 23.08.2023 PASSED BY THE XIII ACMM BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.34223/2018 AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT/ ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY ALLOWING THE

COMPLIANT IN C.C.NO.34223/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ACMM BENGALURU.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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 23.08.2023 passed in CC No.34223 of 2018 by XIII 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 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 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 03^rd 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 21^st July, 2025; the decision of High Court of Chattisgarh in NEELAM SAHU v. NARADNAGWANSHI rendered in ACQA No. 340 of 2018 decided on 16^th July, 2025; and in SMT. KIRTI KURIAN v. AJAY SINGH rendered in ACQA No. 198 of 2019 decided on 16^th July, 2025; the judgment of this Court in the case of SIDAGONDAPPA v. SHAFI AHAMAD rendered in CRL.A. No. 20021/2018 decided on 31^st July, 2025 and in SRI T.H. LENKAPPA v. SRI SANJAY AND ANOTHER rendered in Criminal Appeal No.146 of 2015 decided on 23^rd 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 13^th 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 24^th November, 2025.