High Court of Karnataka held that a complainant who is a victim has the right to appeal an acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The appellant, being a complainant under S. 138 NI Act 1881, was *not* permitted to file the criminal appeal in this Court as the matter was deemed fit to be transferred to the Sessions Court under S. 413 BNSS 2023.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:9258 CRL.A No. 186 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 186 OF 2025 (A)
BETWEEN:
S/O. ANKAIAHA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/A. NO. 60, 'BANGARADA KALASA' NORTH OF 1ST STAGE, GAYATHRIPURAM, MYSURU-570001.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. DILIP KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka
…RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/S PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO A. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 06.08.2024 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU IN C.C.NO.7395/2021 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND ETC.
NC: 2026:KHC:9258 CRL.A No. 186 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
" 10. As already noted, the proviso to Section 372 of 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 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 sub-section (4) of Section 378 of Cr.PC. "
NC: 2026:KHC:9258 CRL.A No. 186 of 2025
HC-KAR
decided on 21st July, 2025; the decision of High Court of Chattisgarh in NEELAM SAHU v. NARADNAGWANSHI rendered
NC: 2026:KHC:9258 CRL.A No. 186 of 2025
HC-KAR
in ACQA No. 340 of 2018 decided on 16th July, 2025; and in SMT. KIRTI KURIAN v. AJAY SINGH rendered in ACQA No. 198 of 2019 decided on 16th July, 2025; the judgment of this Court in the case of SIDAGONDAPPA v. SHAFI AHAMAD rendered in CRL.A. No. 20021/2018 decided on 31st July, 2025 and in SRI T.H. LENKAPPA v. SRI SANJAY AND ANOTHER rendered in Criminal Appeal No.146 of 2015 decided on 23rd July, 2025; the decision of High Court of Delhi in the case of D.K. ASSOCIATES v. SHANKAR AND ANOTHER rendered in Criminal Appeal No.694 of 2016 decided on 13th November, 2025 and the decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/S. ANANYA ENTERPRISES v. SRI G.S. GOPALAKRISHNA rendered in Criminal Appeal No.100171 of 2016 decided on 24th November, 2025. An overall assessment of the aforestated decisions reveals that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CELESTIUM FINANCIAL (supra) has been relied upon by this Court, as well as other High Courts across the country.
NC: 2026:KHC:9258 CRL.A No. 186 of 2025
HC-KAR
of Sessions and be considered as an appeal under the proviso to Section 413 of BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 372 of Cr.PC) and numbered accordingly. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
NC: 2026:KHC:9258 CRL.A No. 186 of 2025
HC-KAR
appeal stands disposed of.
SD/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE
SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the complainant-victim entitled to appeal acquittal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
Whether filing criminal appeal under Section 378 CrPC barred where victim status affirmed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
CELESTIUM FINANCIAL v. A GNANASEKARAN ETC.Followed¶26
2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1320 · Who else cites this
CHARBEL INDIA V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHReferred¶31
2025 SCC ONLINE AP 2815 · Who else cites this
MANORAMA KANKANE v. NARENDRA KUMAR SHUKLAReferred¶31
Criminal Appeal No.5910 of 2025
M/S. LATA KISAN SEWA KENDRA v. PRITAM SINGHReferred¶31
2025 SCC ONLINE MP 4818 · Who else cites this
SMT. URMIT MADRAH v. SAMARPAN JAINReferred¶31
Criminal Appeal No. 11872 of 2022
NEELAM SAHU v. NARADNAGWANSHIReferred¶32
ACQA No. 340 of 2018
SMT. KIRTI KURIAN v. AJAY SINGHReferred¶33
ACQA No. 198 of 2019
SIDAGONDAPPA v. SHAFI AHAMADReferred¶33
CRL.A. No. 20021/2018
SRI T.H. LENKAPPA v. SRI SANJAY AND ANOTHERReferred¶33
Criminal Appeal No.146 of 2015
D.K. ASSOCIATES v. SHANKAR AND ANOTHERReferred¶33
Criminal Appeal No.694 of 2016
M/S. ANANYA ENTERPRISES v. SRI G.S. GOPALAKRISHNAReferred¶33
Criminal Appeal No.100171 of 2016
4 provisions across 3 enactments
SRI YUVARAJ A
SMT LATHA W/O VEDKATESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
