Victims Of NI Act Offence Must Appeal Acquittal In Sessions Court: Karnataka HC

In a ruling that redefines procedural avenues in cheque bounce litigations, complainant-victims can no longer directly approach the High Court under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to challenge an acquittal order. Setting a firm jurisdictional boundary, the High Court held that victims of an offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act must resort to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and move the jurisdictional Sessions Court instead.

A single judge bench of Justice S Rachaiah was presiding over an appeal preferred by a complainant challenging a Trial Court order that acquitted the accused in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act proceeding.

Court Observations and Directions

Summarizing the statutory mandate and binding Supreme Court precedent, the High Court observed that the victim of an offence has an absolute statutory right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, irrespective of whether they initiated the complaint or not.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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. 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."

The Court has following directions:

"The parties shall appear before the jurisdictional Appellate Court / Sessions Court on 21.09.2026, without further notice of the concerned Court."

"The Registry shall transmit the entire appeal papers, including the appeal memo, to the jurisdictional Sessions Court."

"The learned counsel for the appellant shall have the liberty to carry out the amendment in the cause title and also the provisions thereof."

Background

The appellant filed a criminal appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to set aside an acquittal order dated November 30, 2022, passed by the XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru in C.C.No.29144/2017. The complainant sought conviction of the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

While examining the maintainability of the appeal, the High Court relied upon the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., which held that a victim of an offence holds an independent right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 regardless of their status as a complainant, without needing to advert to Section 378(4).

Consequently, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits, the High Court transferred the entire appeal proceedings to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court for adjudication, disposing of the appeal for statistical purposes.

Case Details:
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 426 of 2023 (A)
Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:43732
Case Title: Mr. H. K. Naveen Kumar v. Mr. Krishna Murthy
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Sri. Roopesha B., Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Sri. Gopala H. M., Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(KAR) 12149