Karnataka High Court
CRL.A/2343/2025 of M/S SHARIA ENTERPRISES Vs MOHAMMED HAFEEZ CHERKALA SHAFI on 11 June 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:28151 CRL.A No. 2343 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2343 OF 2025 ( A ) BETWEEN: M/S SHARIA ENTERPRISES HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT, NO.6/2, 2ND FLOOR, SS
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2343 OF 2025 (A)
BETWEEN:
M/S SHARIA ENTERPRISES
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT,
NO.6/2, 2ND FLOOR, SS LANE,
SJP ROAD CROSS,
BENGALURU-560002
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. MOHAMMED JAVEED AKTAR.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAHAMATHULLA KOTHWAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MOHAMMED HAFEEZ CHERKALA SHAFI
S/O AHMED SHAFI CHERKALA MOHAMMED,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
DIRECTOR
M/S. KUDROLI BUILDERS
AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD
2ND FLOOR, KELAMBIKA TOWERS,
GATEQAY PONDA TISK
PONDA, GOA-403401.
ALSO AT:
10/33A, KUDROLI MANNATH
CHERKALA, CHENGALA
KASARGOD, KERALA-671541.
…RESPONDENT
Digitally
signed by
SUSHMA
LAKSHMI
B S
Location:
High
Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(4) CR.PC (FILED U/S
419(4) OF BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 14.10.2025 PASSED
IN CC NO.11394/2022 (PCR NO.3016 OF 2022) PASSED
BY THE HON’BLE XXVI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND
ACJM
BENGALURU
(SCCH-26),
ACQUITTING
THE
RESPONDENT ACCUSED FOR THE SAID OFFENCES U/S
138 OF N.I ACT AND BE PLEASED TO CONVICT THE
RESPONDENT ACCUSED FOR THE SAID OFFENCES AND HE
BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
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
1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320
HC-KAR
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.”
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.
HC-KAR
5. The parties shall appear before the jurisdictional Appellate Court / Sessions Court on 02.07.2026, 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.
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.: 11