Girish S/O Rudrayya Ajjayyanamath, Vs Murthujasab S/O Yamanoorsab

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:16130 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2017

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100079 OF 2017 (A-)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

GIRISH S/O RUDRAYYA AJJAYYANAMATH, AGED ABOUT: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O: KOTE VEERABHADRESHWARA NILAYA, WARD NO.5, KILLA AREA, OPPOSITE CHANDRAHAS TALKIES ROAD, 1^ST CROSS, GANGAVATHI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.11.28 15:24:34 +0530

¶12

MURTHUJASAB S/O YAMANOORSAB, AGED ABOUT: 28 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: WARD NO.4, KOLLA AREA, FATHIMA KIRANI, 1^ST CROSS, NEAR MABUSUBANI JHENDRA KATTI, GANGAVATHI.

¶13

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANKIT DESAI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 (4) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 26/5/2016 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT: GANGAVATHI IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.920/2014 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC.138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT / ACCUSED.

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16130 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2017

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH)

¶21

This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant

¶22

being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.

¶23

However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.¹ , held in

¶24

paragraph No.10 as under:

¶25

“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

¶26

1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:16130 CRL.A No. 100079 of 2017

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

to sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the Cr.PC.”

¶30

On careful reading of the judgment of the Apex

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

The parties shall appear before the jurisdictional Appellate Court / Sessions Court on 13.01.2026 , without further notice of the concerned Court.

¶34