Alankar Jewellers Vs Smt.Maria Gretta Pinto

ALANKAR JEWELLERS BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. ANOOP ROSHAN RODRIGUES, S/O. CYRIL RODRIGUES, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT.NO.10-135/32, ANGEL HOUSE, SMC ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, PRANTHYA VILLAGE, MOODABIDRI, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 227.

¶12

(BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA M R., ADVOCATE)

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT.MARIA GRETTA PINTO D/O. LATE WILFRED CUTINO, W/O. VELARIAN PINTO, AGE 42 YEARS (AS PER JUDGMENT),

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:26287 CRL.A No. 498 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

PROPRIETIX OF DISHA LADIES BEAUTY PARLOUR, R/AT. MARVEL HOUSE, TELLIS NAGARA, HOSABETTU POST, MOODABIDRI, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 227.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. KETHAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶21

¶22

THIS CRL.A FILED U/S 378(4) CR.P.C (U/S 419(4) BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/S PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 29.01.2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT MOODABIDRE, IN CC.NO.611/2018 AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT.

¶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:26287 CRL.A No. 498 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

“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.”

¶32

1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:26287 CRL.A No. 498 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

On careful reading of the judgment of the Apex 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.

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38