Disposed

Smt H N Manjula Devi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2026CRL.A/1941/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an appeal by a complainant who is also a victim against an acquittal is not maintainable under Section 378 Cr.PC before the High Court. Citing Celestium Financial, the court ruled jurisdiction lies with the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.PC and transferred the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is transferred to the jurisdictional Sessions Court; disposed for statistical purposes.

Smt H N Manjula Devi Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:25582 CRL.A No. 1941 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1941 OF 2024 (A)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. H N MANJULA DEVI W/O SRI HARISH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.202, B HOSALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPUR HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT – 562 125.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. SUNIL T., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HEBAGUDI POLICE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 563 125.

¶14

HARISH

¶15

S/O LATE PILLAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT HALE CHANDAPUR, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562 125.

¶16

SRI PILLA REDDY S/O LATE MUNISHAMIREDDY, (DEAD)

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:25582 CRL.A No. 1941 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

4. GOWRAMMA

¶20

W/O LATE PILLAREDDY, (DEAD)

¶21

SRI SURESH S/O LATE PILLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT HALE CHANDAPUR, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562 125. (NOT CLAIMED ANY RELIEF)

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY Ms. ASMA KOUSER., ADDL. SPP FOR R1, NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN RESPECT OF R2, R3 AND R4 ARE DEAD, R5 NOT CLAIMED ANY RELIEF)

¶24

¶25

THIS CRL.A FILED U/S 378 CR.PC (FILED U/S 419 OF BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED NOS.2 AND OTHERS DATED 24.04.2013 IN C.C.NO.85/1998 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ANEKAL AT ANNEXURE-A, MAY PLEASE BE QUASHED, AND ACCUSED NO.2 MAY PLEASE BE CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 498A OF IPC AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITATION ACT.

¶26

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

¶27

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:25582 CRL.A No. 1941 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

This appeal is filed by the

¶33

appellant/complainant being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.

¶34

However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.¹ , held in

¶35

paragraph No.10 as under:

¶36

“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 sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the Cr.PC.”

¶37

1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:25582 CRL.A No. 1941 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

On careful reading of the judgment of the Apex

¶41

Court supra, it is evident that, the complainant being 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.

¶42

In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Celestial 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 jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court.

¶43

The parties shall appear before the jurisdictional Appellate Court / Sessions Court on 30.06.2026 , without further notice of the concerned Court.

¶44

The Registry shall transmit entire appeal papers including appeal memo to the jurisdictional Sessions Court.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:25582 CRL.A No. 1941 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

7. The learned counsel for the appellant shall have

¶49

the liberty to carry out the amendment in the cause title and also the provisions thereof.

¶50

For statistical purpose, this appeal stands

¶51

disposed off.

¶52

Ordered accordingly.

¶53

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶54

Smt H N Manjula Devi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt H N Manjula Devi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Prashanth Kareepa Talavar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Nithin G.B. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Chandrashekar B Vs State of Karnataka

The Primary Agricultural Credit Co. Operative Society Ltd. Vs Smt P a Rukiya

Praveen @ Seena @ Bhootha Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Chandrika Vs State by