Sri. B. R. Vasudeva Murthy Vs Smt. R. Poornima

SRI. B. R. VASUDEVA MURTHY S/O T. R. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.34, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, 1^ST PHASE, 2^ND STAGE, MANJUNATHNAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 010.

¶10

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

¶11

(BY SRI. S KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

AND:

¶14

SMT. R. POORNIMA W/O KRISHNA MURTHY S. G., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.52/2, 6^TH CROSS,

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:28774 CRL.A No. 1611 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

ANANDANAPPA 50 FEET ROAD, NEAR POLICE COWKI, CHOWDESHWARI NAGAR, LAGGERE, BANGALORE – 560 058.

¶19

WORKING AT: S.L.T.V. MEDIA INDIA PVT LTD, SMT. R POORNIMA, MANAGING DIRECTOR,NO.486, THANU ELEGANT BUILDING, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, SUNKADAKATTE, BANGALORE – 560 091.

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

¶22

THIS CRL.A FILED U/S 378(4) CR.PC (FILED U/S 419 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND A.C.M.M COURT OF SMALL CAUSES BENGALURU CITY IN C.C.NO.4411/2021 DATED 10.06.2024.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:28774 CRL.A No. 1611 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

“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.”

¶33

1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28774 CRL.A No. 1611 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

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.

¶37

In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex

¶38

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