Disposed

Sri. N. Shylendra v. Sri. Vijendra Rao. Y

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2026CRL.A/1976/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal against acquittal. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that a complainant victim should appeal under Section 372 CrPC before the Sessions Court, not under Section 378(4) to the High Court. The appeal was transferred to the jurisdictional Appellate Court.

What did the court decide?

Appeal transferred to jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court. Appeal stands disposed for statistical purposes.

Sri. N. Shylendra Vs Sri. Vijendra Rao. Y — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:32534 CRL.A No. 1976 of 2024

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1976 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. N. SHYLENDRA S/O LATE N. MANDARA JAIN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT "B" BLOCK, 4TH CROSS GANDHINAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 201.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

SRI. VIJENDRA RAO. Y S/O B.C. YASHWANTHA RAO GAYAKAWAD, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O AMBEDKAR COLONY, A.T.N.C.C COLLEGE NEAR LAW COLLEGE SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶15

…RESPONDENT THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL APPEAL AND BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL ORDER DATED 03.09.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA IN C.C.NO.835/2020 AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:32534 CRL.A No. 1976 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW WITH WHICH HE HAS BEEN CHARGED.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

“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

¶26

1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:32534 CRL.A No. 1976 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

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.”

¶30

On careful reading of the judgment of the Hon’ble

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

the appeal on merit, the appeal is transferred to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court.

¶34

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

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:32534 CRL.A No. 1976 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

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

¶38

The learned counsel for the appellant shall have

¶39

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

¶40

For statistical purposes, this appeal stands disposed of . Ordered accordingly.

¶41

In view of the disposal of the appeal, pending I.A., if any, does not survive for consideration and the same is also disposed of.

¶42

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶43

HDK

¶44

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Sri. N. Shylendra v. Sri. Vijendra Rao. Y

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. N. Shylendra v. Sri. Vijendra Rao. Y

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

Smt. Ambika Vs the State of Karnataka

G R Arun Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Vijay M Vs State by Jigani Police Station

Smt. Uma Jayachandra Vs Smt. R Pushpa

Prasad Kumar K R Vs State of Karnataka

S B Puttaswamy Vs Somu