- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48175 CRL.A No. 389 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.389 OF 2016 (A) BETWEEN: SRI. K. RAMESH S/O. M. KEMPARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO.268/A, 7TH MAIN, 9TH BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU-560072. REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER, K. KEMPARAMAIAH, S/O. LATE MUDDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.268/A, 7TH MAIN, 9TH BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, NAGARABHAVI, BANGALORE-560072. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. K. SHRIDHARA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. SURESH KUMAR S/O. R. SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.26, 3RD MAIN, 8TH CROSS, J.S. NAGAR, Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48175 CRL.A No. 389 of 2016 NANDINI BADAVANE, BENGALURU-560096. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GOUTHAM NETTAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) CR.P.C., PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.02.2016 PASSED BY THE XVI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU, IN CASE BEARING NO.C.C.NO.2008/2014 AND EXAMINE THE CORRECTNESS AND THE LEGAL VALIDITY OF THE SAID ORDER AND APPRECIATE THE FACTS AND GROUNDS MENTIONED IN THE ABOVE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL, CONSEQUENTLY, CONVICT THE RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT AND ETC.,. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 26.06.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48175 CRL.A No. 389 of 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. 2. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.1, held in paragraph No.10 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 1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48175 CRL.A No. 389 of 2016 not advert to sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the Cr.PC.” 3. On careful reading of the judgment of the Apex Court supra, it is evident that, the complainant being victim has to file an appeal against the order of acquittal before the Jurisdictional Sessions Court by invoking Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 4. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, in Celestial supra, the appeal by the complainant against the order of acquittal is not maintainable before this Court. Since this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merit, the appeal is transferred to jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court. 5. The parties shall appear before the jurisdictional Appellate Court / Sessions Court on 13.01.2026, without further notice of the concerned Court. 6. The Registry shall transmit entire appeal papers including appeal memo to the jurisdictional Sessions Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48175 CRL.A No. 389 of 2016 7. The learned counsel for the appellant shall have the liberty to carry out the amendment in the cause title and also the provisions thereof. 8. For statistical purpose, this appeal stands disposed off. 9. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE MRK/CT: UMD List No.: 19 Sl No.: 7