Sri Shivanand Y S Vs Shri Ravendranatha Mohite

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:28499 CRL.A No. 1045 of 2024

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1045 OF 2024 (A)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SHIVANAND Y S AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O SRI YELOJI SHIGAONKAR, RESIDING AT NO.18, 1^ST FLOOR, V CROSS, MARUTHI LAYOUT, NEAR SHANKAR MUTT, OLD SUB REGISTRAR OFFICER, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 079.

¶9

Digitally signed by SUSHMA LAKSHMI B S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

SMT LAKSHMI SHIGAONKAR @ LAKSHMI M AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/O SRI SHIVANAND Y S, RESIDING AT NO.18, 1^ST FLOOR, V CROSS, MARUTHI LAYOUT, NEAR SHANKAR MUTT, OLD SUB REGISTRAR OFFICER, BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 079.

¶11

…APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SMT. ARCHANA MURTHY., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SHRI RAVENDRANATHA MOHITE

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:28499 CRL.A No. 1045 of 2024

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

AGED ABOUT MAJOR, S/O NOT KNOWN, NO.43 NEW NO.69, VASANTH NILAYA, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 3^RD CROSS, NEAR SHAREWARE TEMPLE, GELEYARABALA, BENGALURU – 560 086.

¶18

AND ALSO AT: SHRI. RAVENDRANATHA MOHITE, EMPLOYEE NO.10723, SKF INDIA LTD., PLOT NO.2, BOMMASANDRE INDUSTRIAL AREA, HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 099.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. VENKATACHALAPATHY S G., ADVOCATE)

¶21

¶22

THIS CRL.A FILED U/S 378(4) CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL IN C.C.NO.11453/2019 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE XIX ADDL. CMM, AT BANGALORE DATED 02.04.2024 BY CONVICTING AND PUNISHING THE RESPONDENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

¶24

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:28499 CRL.A No. 1045 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant

¶31

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

¶32

However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.¹ , held in paragraph No.10 as under:

¶33

“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 subsection (4) of Section 378 of the Cr.PC.”

¶34

1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28499 CRL.A No. 1045 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

The parties shall appear before the jurisdictional Appellate Court / Sessions Court on 02.07.2026 , without further notice of the concerned Court.

¶40