Ambica Corporation Vs Gwalior Collection

AMBICA CORPORATION, WHOLESALE FANCY CLOTH MERCHANTS, NO.4, OM AMBICA TOWERS, 32^ND CROSS KILAR ROAD, AVENUE CROSS ROAD, BEHIND RICE MEMORIAL CHRUCH, BENGALURU - 560 053. REP BY ITS DE FACTO AND DE JURE OWNER AND PROPRIETOR, HEMANTH KUMAR.C, S/O CHELLARAM, AGE 34 YEARS,

¶10

NOW REP BY HIS L.A HOLDER, SUKHRAJ BHANDARI, S/O DHANAJI, AGE 69 YEARS, R/AT NO.31, MODEL HOUSE STREET BASAVANAGUDI,

¶11

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:29185 CRL.A No. 1933 of 2025

HC-KAR

BENGALURU – 560 004.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SRINIVASAN C., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI GWALIOR COLLECTION,

¶18

BESIDE SOTEPEER MASJID MAIN ROAD, BASAVA KALYANA - 585 327. DISTRICT BIDAR, STATE KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR FAROOQ NABI ALIL,

¶19

ALSO AT

¶20

GWALILOR COLLECTION MAIN ROAD, OPPOSITE AMBICA MANDIR FORT ROAD, BASAVA KALYANA - 585 327. DISTRICT BIDAR, STATE KARNATAKA.

¶21

FAROOQ NABI ALI

¶22

PROPRIETOR OF GWALIOR COLLECTION, BESIDE STOTEPEER MASJID MAIN ROAD, BASAVA KALYANA – 585 327. DISTRICT BIDAR, STATE KARNATAKA,

¶23

3 -

¶24

NC: 2026:KHC:29185 CRL.A No. 1933 of 2025

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

RESIDENCE:

¶27

FAROOQ NABI ALI, 03/126/02, GROUND FLOOR, SHAH HUSSAIN GALLI, BASABA KALYANA – 585 327. DISTRICT BIDAR, STATE KARNATAKA, BASAVA KALYANA – 585 327. DISTRICT BIDAR. STATE KARNATKA.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

¶30

THIS CRL.A FILED U/S 378(4) CR.PC (FILED U/S 419(4) OF BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 02.07.2025 PASSED IN CC.NO.10834/2024, ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE 15^TH A.C.J.M. AT BENGALURU AND CONSEQUENTLY CONVICT THE RESPONDENT AND GRANT COMPENSATION TO THE APPELLANT AS PRAYED FOR IN THE COMPLAINT AND ETC.,

¶31

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

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:29185 CRL.A No. 1933 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶36

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶37

This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

“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

¶41

1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:29185 CRL.A No. 1933 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

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

¶46

On careful reading of the judgment of the Hon’ble

¶47

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.

¶48

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.

¶49

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

¶50