- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8648 CRL.A No. 100200 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100199 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100200 OF 2018 (A) C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100199 OF 2018 IN CRL.A.NO.100200/2018: BETWEEN: SHRI PUNDALIK S/O. GUNDU PATIL, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.580, PEERANWADI, BELAGAVI-590001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. U.J HAVALDAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI SANJAY S/O. MARUTI CHINCHANEKAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. PLOT NO.503, RADHA GOVINDA APARTMENT, S.V. ROAD, BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.05.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN CRL.APPEAL NO.145/2018 THEREBY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 01.03.2018 PASSED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.1161/2017(OLD CC NO.999/2011) ON THE FILE OF V-JMFC, BELAGAVI BY YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2025.07.17 11:10:39 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8648 CRL.A No. 100200 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100199 of 2018 ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NI ACT BY ALLOWING THE TOP NOTED TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. IN CRL.A.NO.100199/2018: BETWEEN: SHRI YALLAPPA S/O. GUNDU PATIL, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.580, PEERANWADI, BELAGAVI-590001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. U.J HAVALDAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI PRAMODINI W/O. SANJAY CHINCHANEKAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. PLOT NO.503, RADHA GOVINDA PARK, 4TH FLOOR, PLOT NO. 720, S.V. ROAD, BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.05.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN CRL.APPEAL NO.146/2018 THEREBY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 01.03.2018 PASSED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.464/2017(OLD CC NO.474/2011) ON THE FILE OF V-JMFC, BELAGAVI BY ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NI ACT BY ALLOWING THE TOP NOTED TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8648 CRL.A No. 100200 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100199 of 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) These two appeals arise out of common judgment passed in Crl.A.Nos.145/2018 and 146/2018, dated 07.05.2018 by the XI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi1, whereby the First Appellate Court dismissed both the appeals as not maintainable. 2. The short point for consideration in these appeals that whether an appeal is maintainable before the Sessions Court against the order of acquittal by the Magistrate Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act? 3. The First Appellate Court dismissed Crl.A.No.145/2018 and Crl.A.No.146/2018 for the reason that the appeals are not maintainable since the same are preferred by the respective complainants against an order of acquittal passed in CC.No.464/2017 and CC No.1161/2017 by V Addl. JMFC, Belagavi. The learned First Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal observed that the complainant in the private complaint relating to proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act, cannot prefer appeal before the Sessions Court by 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘first appellate Court’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8648 CRL.A No. 100200 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100199 of 2018 treating himself/herself as victim under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. This position is clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran2 in paragraph No.10 held as under: “10. As already noted, the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC was inserted in the statute 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 the 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 the CrPC.” 4. As such, on perusal of law enunciated by the Apex Court stated supra, it is clear that the victim of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C where the appeal ordinarily lies, irrespective of whether he/she is a complainant or not. Thus, I am of the considered view that the impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is liable to be set-aside and the matter requires to be remanded to the First Appellate Court for fresh consideration on merits. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: 2 2025 SCC Online SC 1320 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8648 CRL.A No. 100200 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100199 of 2018 ORDER a) The appeals in Crl.A.No.100200/2018 and Crl.A.No.100199/2018 are allowed; b) The impugned common judgment dated 07.05.2018 passed in Crl.A.Nos.145 of 2018 and 146 of 2018 by the learned XI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, are hereby set-aside; c) The matter is remanded to the First Appellate Court for consideration afresh after issuance of notice to the respective respondents; and d) Since transaction is of the year 2011, the first appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeals in Crl.A.No.145/2018 and 146/2018 as early as possible within an outer limit of four months from the date of appearance of the parties. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE JTR CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 4