M/S Shakunthala Vs M/S Savena

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:32830 CRL.A No. 126 of 2023

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 126 OF 2023 (A)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

M/S SHAKUNTHALA, W/O RAMA GANAPATHY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/A D.NO.8/124/7, OMSHREE NILAYA, BEHIND REHAMAN SAWMILL, LANDLINKS, DAMBEL, ASHOKNAGAR, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT – 575 006.

¶7

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

¶8

(BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY., ADVOCATE)

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

AND:

¶11

M/S SAVENA, S/O SUNIL, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/A SRI BRAHMARI, D.NO.2-2-84/90,

¶12

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:32830 CRL.A No. 126 of 2023

¶13

HC-KAR

¶14

SOMESHWARA ENCLAVE, ADARSH NAGAR CHILIMBI, ASHOKNAGAR POST, MANGALORE,

¶15

HAVING OFFICE AT SURESHA HERBAL LADIES BEAUTY PARLOUR, NEAR CANARA BANK, MARIGUDI ROAD, URWA, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT – 575 006.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE)

¶18

¶19

THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(4) CRPC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 21.11.2022 MADE IN C.C.NO.1823/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE J.M.F.C, V COURT AT MANGALURU, D.K. AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT FOR THE OFENCE P/U/S 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT 1881 AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:32830 CRL.A No. 126 of 2023

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

“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

¶29

1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320

¶30

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:32830 CRL.A No. 126 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

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

¶33

On careful reading of the judgment of the Hon’ble

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

The parties shall appear before the jurisdictional Appellate Court / Sessions Court on 28.07.2026 , without further notice of the concerned Court.

¶37