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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 1065

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
G BASAVARAJA
SRI CHAND TARACHAND – Appellant
Versus
P J KUMAR RAO – Respondent
CRL.A 281/2020



HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.280 OF 2020 (A)

C/W

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.281 OF 2020 (A)

IN CRL.A. NO.280/2020

BETWEEN:

SRI CHAND TARACHAND

S/O TARACHAND,

NOW AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,

R/AT NO.83/C, II MAIN,

YADAVAGIRI,

MYSURU-570020.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKARA K.A., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed

by PANKAJA S

Location: HIGH AND:

COURT OF

KARNATAKA

1. P.J. KUMAR RAO

S/O LATE JAYARAM

AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,

R/AT NO.228, 3RD STAGE,

3RD MAIN, 8TH CROSS,

GOKULAM,

MYSURU-570002.

2. SMY. TARA K. PATANGE

W/O P.J. KUMAR RAO,

AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,

HC-KAR R/AT NO.228, 3RD STAGE, 3RD MAIN, 8TH CROSS, GOKULAM, MYSURU-570002.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

378(4) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31.12.2019, PASSED BY THE LEARNED VI ADDITIONAL I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU IN C.C.NO.1771/2012, ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF THE N.I ACT.I.A.NO.1/2020 FOR SPECIAL LEAVE.

IN CRL.A. NO.281/2020 BETWEEN:

SRI CHAND TARACHAND S/O TARACHAND, NOW AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO.83/C, II MAIN, YADAVAGIRI, MYSURU-570020.

...APPELLANT (BY SRI CHANDRASHEKARA K.A., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. P.J. KUMAR RAO S/O LATE JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT NO.228, 3RD STAGE, 3RD MAIN, 8TH CROSS, GOKULAM, MYSURU-570002. 2. SMT. TARA K. PATANGE W/O P.J. KUMAR RAO, HC-KAR AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT NO.228, 3RD STAGE, 3RD MAIN, 8TH CROSS, GOKULAM, MYSURU-570002. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

378(4) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31.12.2019, PASSED BY THE LEARNED VI ADDITIONAL I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU IN C.C.NO.1316/2012, 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:

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 31.12.2019 passed in C.C.No.1771/2012 and C.C.No.1316/2012 by the VI Additional I Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru (for short "the trial Court").

2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CELESTIUM FINANCIAL v. A GNANASEKARAN ETC.

HC-KAR 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 HC-KAR 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 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

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