- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41488 CRL.A No. 131 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 131 OF 2025 (A) BETWEEN: MR. ARUN M. NIKAM, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O. LATE MARUTHI D. NIKAM, SRI. RAJALAXMI JEWELLERS, BHAVANTHI STREET, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT -575 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. JINENDRA B., ADVOCATE) AND: NIHAL AHMED, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMAD SHAMSHIR FLAT NO. 601, QUEEN CORNER, AGNES ROAD, K.M.C. MERCARA, TRUNK ROAD, OPP. VAS BAKERY, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT -575002 …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S. 378(4) CR.PC (FILED U/S. 419(4) BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED 25.09.2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE COURT OF J.M.F.C IV COURT MANGALURU D.K IN C.C.NO.1161/2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY CONVICT THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41488 CRL.A No. 131 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT The learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo for withdrawal. 2. The memo of withdrawal reads as under: "The Appellant above-named most humbly submits as follows: 1. The present appeal is filed challenging the Judgment of acquittal dated 25.09.2024, passed by the Hon'ble Court of J.M.F.C IV, Mangaluru, D.K. in C.C. No. 1161/2024, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Appellant had filed the present appeal along with an application seeking special leave under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C.. 2. It is submitted that in light of the recent pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Hon'ble Court, the legal position regarding the appropriate forum for such an appeal has been clarified. 3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 666) has held that a complainant in a cheque dishonor case under Section 138 of the NI Act is a "victim" as defined under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C.. As a victim, the complainant has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and furthermore, this Hon'ble Court in Thomas Mani v. G. Shankar (CRL.RP No.851 of 2016), has clarified that an appeal by a victim against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate shall lie to the Court of Session, as that is the court where an appeal against a conviction would ordinarily lie. 4. It is further submitted that prosecuting the appeal before the jurisdictional Sessions Court in Mangaluru, D.K. would be more convenient for the Appellant, as both parties are residents of the same district. 5. In view of the aforementioned reasons the Appellant seeks permission to withdraw the present appeal with liberty - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41488 CRL.A No. 131 of 2025 to file a fresh appeal before the competent District and Sessions Court. PRAYER WHEREFORE, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: a) Permit the Appellant to withdraw the instant Criminal Appeal, and b) Grant liberty to the Appellant to file a fresh appeal before the competent Sessions Court in Mangaluru, D.K. against the judgment of acquittal dated 25.09.2024 passed in C.C. No. 1161/2024; and c) Grant the Appellant a period of Four Weeks from today to file the fresh appeal, in the interest of justice and equity." 3. I have perused the memo. In view of the memo, appellant is permitted to withdraw this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. The Appellant is at liberty to file a fresh appeal, if it is permissible under law and also decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. Two weeks' time is granted to take necessary action as sought for in the memo. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE DS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27