Disposed¶41

Sri Karthik v. Smt Vanita Nayak

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2026CRL.A/789/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, S Rachaiiah J, 15-07-2026, CRL.A 789/2026: complainant's appeal under S.378(4) CrPC against acquittal/non-prosecution dismissal not maintainable before High Court; per Celestium Financial (2025 SCC Online SC 1320), victim-complainant to appeal under proviso to S.372 CrPC before Sessions Court; appeal transferred, parties to appear 25.08.2026; disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Appeal transferred to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court; parties directed to appear there on 25.08.2026 without further notice; Registry to transmit the entire appeal papers including the appeal memo; liberty given to the learned counsel for the appellant to carry out amendment in the cause title and the provisions thereof; pending I.A., if any, disposed of. ¶41

Sri Karthik Vs Smt Vanita Nayak — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether an appeal by the complainant against acquittal, filed under S. 378(4) CrPC, is maintainable before the High Court, in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Celestium Financial that a victim-complainant may appeal under the proviso to S. 372 CrPC before the Sessions Court.

¶24

Court's answer

On careful reading of Celestium Financial (SC), it is evident that the complainant, being the victim, has to file the appeal against the order of acquittal before the jurisdictional Sessions Court by invoking Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

An appeal by the complainant against the order of acquittal is not maintainable before this Court; the High Court has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merit, and the appeal is therefore transferred to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court.

¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal (CRL.A No. 789 of 2026) filed by the complainant under S. 378(4) CrPC against the order dated 04.02.2026 of the XX A.C.J.M., Bengaluru, in C.C.No.24785/2022 dismissing his complaint for non-prosecution (acquittal), held not maintainable before the High Court of Karnataka. Relying on Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. (2025 SCC Online SC 1320), the Court held that a complainant who is the victim must prefer the appeal against acquittal before the jurisdictional Sessions Court under the proviso to S. 372 CrPC and need not advert to S. 378(4); the appeal was transferred to the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court, with parties directed to appear on 25.08.2026 without further notice, the Registry to transmit the appeal papers, and liberty to amend the cause title; the appeal stands disposed of for statistical purposes.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:36032 CRL.A No. 789 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

CNR: KAHC010312632026

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶9

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 789 OF 2026 (A)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI. KARTHIK, SON OF LATE KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.222, 2^ND MAIN, 1^ST CROSS, KOTHNURDINNE, J.P. NAGAR EIGHTH PHASE, BANGALORE – 560 076. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. AKKIMANJUNATH GOWDA K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

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

¶13

AND:

¶14

SMT. VANITA NAYAK, WIFE OF SRI. G. R. NAYAK, MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT NO.666, NARAYANAKRUPA, 15^TH A MAIN ROAD, 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 041.

…RESPONDENT

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:36032 CRL.A No. 789 of 2026

¶19

CNR: KAHC010312632026

¶20

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.02.2026, PASSED BY THE XX A.C.J.M., BENGALURU, IN C.C.NO.24785/2022, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT FOR NON PROSECUTION.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.

¶25

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

¶26

“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

¶27

1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320

¶28

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:36032 CRL.A No. 789 of 2026

¶31

CNR: KAHC010312632026

¶32

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.”

¶33

On careful reading of the judgment of the Hon’ble

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:36032 CRL.A No. 789 of 2026

¶39

CNR: KAHC010312632026

¶40

The parties shall appear before the jurisdictional Appellate Court / Sessions Court on 25.08 .2026 , without further notice of the concerned Court.

¶41

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

¶42

The learned counsel for the appellant shall have the liberty to carry out the amendment in the cause title and also the provisions thereof.

¶43

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

¶44

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.

¶45

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶46

NM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Sri Karthik v. Smt Vanita Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Karthik v. Smt Vanita Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amir Khan Alias Nawaz Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Suresh Marati Vs State by Circle Inspector of Police

Smt B Girija Vs Sri T B Rudramurthy

Sri. Ganesh Shetti, Vs Sri. B.S. Ashoka

Sri Somashekar Vs State by Town Police

Sri Madhukumar @ a C C @ Madhu Vs State of Karnataka