- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010410092016 NC: 2026:KHC:38250 CRL.A No. 1643 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1643 OF 2016 (A) BETWEEN: M/S. R. D. C. CONCRETE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED NO.37B, DODDANEKKUNDI INDUSTRIAL AREA 1ST PHASE, WHITEFIELD ROAD BENGALURU-560 048 REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER CREDIT CONTROL SRI FRANCIS R. AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O. P. RAYAPPA …APPELLANT (BY SRI S. D. N. PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. GMMR PROPERTIES NO.14, PARAS NIVAS JAYANNA LAYOUT RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA BENGALURU-560 098 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR Digitally signed by SUSHMA LAKSHMI B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010410092016 NC: 2026:KHC:38250 CRL.A No. 1643 of 2016 SRI G. MADAN MOHAN REDDY 2. SRI C. MADAN MOHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O. G. GOPI REDDY PROPRIETOR M/S. GMMR PROPERTIES JAYANNA LAYOUT RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA BENGALURU-560 098 …RESPONDENTS (R-1 AND R-2 ARE SERVED) ---- THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 378(4) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN C.C.NO.6634/2015, DISPOSED ON 18.04.2016, BY THE HON’BLE COURT OF THE XLII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU CITY AND TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 18.04.2016 PASSED BY THE XLII A.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.6634/2015-ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 138 ON N.I ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010410092016 NC: 2026:KHC:38250 CRL.A No. 1643 of 2016 ORAL 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 not advert to sub- section (4) of Section 378 of the Cr.PC.” 1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320 - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010410092016 NC: 2026:KHC:38250 CRL.A No. 1643 of 2016 3. On careful reading of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court supra, it is evident that the complainant, being the 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 Hon’ble Apex Court, in Celestium Financial case 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 the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court. 5. The parties shall appear before the jurisdictional Appellate Court / Sessions Court on 31.08.2026, without further notice of the concerned Court. 6. The Registry shall transmit the entire appeal papers, including the appeal memo, to the jurisdictional Sessions Court. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010410092016 NC: 2026:KHC:38250 CRL.A No. 1643 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 purposes, this appeal stands disposed of. Ordered accordingly. In view of the disposal of the appeal, pending I.A., if any, does not survive for consideration and the same is also disposed of. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26