Karnataka High Court
CRL.A/1753/2023 of SRI. M NAGARAJU Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 31 July 2026
CNR: KAHC010445652023 NC: 2026:KHC:40187 CRL.A No. 1753 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1753 OF 2023 ( A ) BETWEEN: SRI. M. NAGARAJU, S/O. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1753 OF 2023 (A)
BETWEEN:
SRI. M. NAGARAJU,
S/O. MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
ADVOCATE,
RESIDENT OF NO.617,
1ST FLOOR, RAJESHWARI
MARKET BUILDING,
AVENUE ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 002.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BALARAJ A C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
CUBBON PARK POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU.
Digitally
signed by
SUSHMA
LAKSHMI B
S
Location:
High Court
of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
2.
SRI. C. S. NAGARAJAIAH,
S/O. LATE SHIVABASAVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF
NO.48, 1ST CROSS,
JNANAGANGANAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 056.
3.
SRI. C. B. NAGARAJA,
S/O. BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF NO.182,
1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
JAGAJYOTHINAGAR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU – 560 026.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAVEED S., HCGP)
----
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(4) OF CR.P.C. BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/S PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 01.04.2023, PASSED BY THE VIII ADDITIONAL
CHIEF METROPOLITIAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU, IN
CR.NO.61/2010, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION.138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT AND ETC., THIS
APPEAL,
COMING
ON
FOR
FURTHER
CLARIFICATION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
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 1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320
HC-KAR
Section 372 and need not advert to sub- section (4) of Section 378 of the Cr.PC.”
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 07.09.2026, 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.
HC-KAR
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
NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32