Disposed¶41

Gopi J v. Venkatesh K

Karnataka HC7 Jul 2026CRL.A/651/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of complainant's appeal against acquittal; Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.; proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.; Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 SCC Online SC 1320); transfer of appeal from High Court to jurisdictional Sessions Court; acquittal by XIV ACMM Mayo Hall Bengaluru in C.C.51455/2021 arising out of PCR No.134/2018; offences under Sections 447, 451, 468, 379, 380, 415, 420 IPC; Karnataka High Court; decided 07-07-2026; S RACHAIAH, Judge.

What did the court decide?

Appeal transferred to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court; parties directed to appear there on 05.08.2026 without further notice; Registry to transmit the entire appeal papers including the appeal memo; liberty given to the appellant's counsel to amend the cause title and the provisions thereof; pending I.A., if any, disposed of as not surviving.

Gopi J Vs Venkatesh K — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal filed by the complainant/appellant under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against the Trial Court's judgment of acquittal is maintainable before the High Court.

¶30

Court's answer

On careful reading of Celestium Financial, 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 (i.e., under the proviso to Section 372, not sub-section (4) of Section 378).

¶29

Ratio / Principle

In view of the law laid down in Celestium Financial, the appeal by the complainant against the order of acquittal is not maintainable before this Court; since the Court has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits, it is transferred to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court.

¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal (CRL.A No. 651 of 2023, High Court of Karnataka, decided 07-07-2026 by S RACHAIAH, J.) filed by the complainant under S.378(4) Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by XIV ACMM, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, in C.C.51455/2021 (arising out of PCR No.134/2018) and to convict the respondent under Sections 447, 451, 468, 379, 380, 415 and 420 IPC. Relying on Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 SCC Online SC 1320), the Court held that a complainant who is the victim must prefer an appeal against acquittal before the jurisdictional Sessions Court under the proviso to S.372 Cr.P.C., and that an appeal under S.378(4) Cr.P.C. is not maintainable before the High Court. Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of and transferred to the jurisdictional Sessions Court, with the parties to appear on 05.08.2026, the Registry to transmit the appeal papers, and liberty to amend the cause title.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:34031 CRL.A No. 651 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 651 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

GOPI J., S/O T. JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S.Q.S., COLOUR LAB, K. J. COMPLEX, B. M. ROAD, ROBERTSON PET, K. G. F.- 563 122

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI S. JAGAN BABU, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶12

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

¶13

VENKATESH K, S/O M. KANNAN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT S. F-5, "BALAJI NEST", 2^ND FLOOR, 2^ND MAIN, BASAPPA LAYOUT, HENNUR CROSS, HBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 036.

¶14

(BY SRI MAHESHA P, ADVOCATE)

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL ORDER PASSED BY XIV ACMM, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU, IN C.C.51455/2021 (ARISING OUR OF PCR NO.134/2018) AND TO CONVICT THE RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 447, 451, 468, 379, 380, 415, AND 420 OF IPC.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:34031 CRL.A No. 651 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant 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 Cr.P.C. 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 Cr.P.C., 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.P.C.”

¶26

1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:34031 CRL.A No. 651 of 2023

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

On careful reading of the judgment of the Hon’ble 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.

¶30

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.

¶31

The parties shall appear before the jurisdictional Appellate Court / Sessions Court on 05.08.2026 , without further notice of the concerned Court.

¶32