Mrs Jayanthi Kumar v. Mrs Manjula N

Karnataka HC16 Jun 2026CRL.A/1062/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; CRL.A No. 1062 of 2021; maintainability of complainant's appeal against acquittal; proviso to Section 372 CrPC versus Section 378(4) CrPC; Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 SCC Online SC 1320; transfer of appeal to jurisdictional Sessions Court; acquittal under Section 420 IPC in C.C.No.4930/2016; Justice S Rachaih; decision dated 16-06-2026.

What did the court decide?

Appeal transferred to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court; parties to appear there on 02.07.2026 without further notice; Registry to transmit the entire appeal papers including the appeal memo to the jurisdictional Sessions Court; liberty to the appellant's counsel to carry out amendment in the cause title; pending I.A.s disposed of. ¶¶46

Mrs Jayanthi Kumar Vs Mrs Manjula N — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal filed by the complainant/appellant under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C against the Trial Court's acquittal judgment is maintainable before the High Court, given that a complainant who is the victim must invoke Section 372 Cr.P.C before the jurisdictional Sessions Court.

¶¶37

Court's answer

On a careful reading of Celestium Financial (2025 SCC Online SC 1320), the complainant, being the victim, has to file the appeal against the order of acquittal before the Jurisdictional Sessions Court by invoking Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶¶36

Ratio / Principle

The appeal by the complainant against the order of acquittal is not maintainable before this Court (the High Court).

¶¶37

Key takeaways

This Court has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits.ratio¶¶37
Accordingly, the appeal is transferred to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court.ratio¶¶38
The parties are directed to appear before the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court on 02.07.2026, without further notice of the concerned Court.ratio¶¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal (CRL.A No. 1062 of 2021) by the complainant against the acquittal of the accused (offence punishable under S. 420 IPC) in C.C.No.4930/2016 (judgment dated 25.01.2021, XXX Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru), filed under S. 378(4) Cr.P.C. Relying on Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 SCC Online SC 1320 (paragraph 10), the court held that a complainant who is the victim must prefer the appeal against acquittal before the jurisdictional Sessions Court by invoking Section 372 Cr.P.C; the appeal was therefore not maintainable before the High Court, which, having no jurisdiction to decide it on merits, transferred it to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court, directing the parties to appear on 02.07.2026 and the Registry to transmit the papers; disposed of for statistical purposes.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:29394 CRL.A No. 1062 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1062 OF 2021 (A)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MRS JAYANTHI KUMAR, W/O LATE SHRI M. S. KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, NO.27, SAI NILAYAM, 10^TH MAIN, ITTAMADU, BSK 3^RD STAGE BENGALURU – 560 085.

¶8

PRESENTLY R/A NO.201, R K REGENCY, ABOVE SBI BANK, KATHRIGUPPE MAIN ROAD, KATHRIGUPPE, BENGALURU – 560 085.

¶9

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

¶10

(BY SRI. ANAND S. G., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

MRS MANJULA N, W/O MR L. P. NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/A NO.21, 4^TH MAIN, NEAR AYYAPPA TEMPEL, KATHRIGUPPE 3^RD STAGE, BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU.

¶14

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:29394 CRL.A No. 1062 of 2021

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

PRESENTLY AT NO.3277, 8^TH MAIN, 5^TH CROSS, CHANDRANAGAR, NEAR OM SHAKTHI TEMPLE, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 078.

¶17

MR L. P. NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A NO.21, 4^TH MAIN, NEAR AYYAPPA TEMPLE, KATHRIGUPPE 3^RD STAGE, BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU. PRESENTLY AT NO.3277, 8^TH MAIN, 5^TH CROSS, CHANDRANAGAR, NEAR OM SHAKTHI TEMPLE, KUMARSWAMY LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 078.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS ----

¶19

(BY SRI. B. H. BHAGAVAN., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶20

THIS CRL.A FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/S PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 25.01.2021 PASSED BY THE XXX ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU, IN C.C.NO.4930/2016, ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420 OF IPC, 1860 AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29394 CRL.A No. 1062 of 2021

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

“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

¶30

1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:29394 CRL.A No. 1062 of 2021

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Section 372 and need not advert to subsection (4) of Section 378 of the Cr.PC.”

¶35

On careful reading of the judgment of the Hon’ble

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

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