Mohammed Asghar Vs Riyaz @ Riyaz Ahmed

SHABEER @ SHABEER PASHA S/o ABDUL KHADAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT No.19/D, 4^TH CROSS, UMMAR BHAG LAYOUT, OPP TO SARAKI GATE, J. P. NAGARA, BANGALORE-560 078.

¶16

SYED BASHA S/o LATE SYED ALISAB, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:1588 CRL.RP No. 440 of 2021

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

R/AT No. 29, 22^ND CROSS, VINAYAKA NAGARA, J. P. NAGARA-5^TH PHASE, BANGALORE-560 078.

¶21

STATE BY KOTTANURU P.S., BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI A.S.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;

¶24

SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R4)

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN I.A.NO.1/2018 IN CRL.A.NO.17/2018 DATED 14.12.2020 BY THE LXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-67) BY DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.1/2018 FILED BY THE REVISION PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVISION PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 372 OF CR.P.C. AND THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN C.C.No.24206/2011 BY THE HONOURABLE IV ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU DATED 18.04.2016 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406, 409, 416, 418, 420, 463,464,467,468 OF IPC BEFORE THE SESSIONS COURT AND REMIT BACK THE MATTER TO THE APPELLATE/SESSIONS COURT FOR DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL ON MERIT.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:1588 CRL.RP No. 440 of 2021

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

This Criminal Revision petition is filed by the de facto complainant assailing the order dated 14.12.2020 passed by the Court of LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on I.A.No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.17/2018.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶34

Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the petitioner

¶35

placing reliance on the judgment of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Criminal Writ Petition No.871/2024 submits that for the purpose of filing an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C., no limitation is provided under law and therefore the appellate Court was not justified in dismissing Crl.A.No.17/2018 on the ground of delay.

¶36

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.2 to 4 submits that proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C., came into force with effect from 31.12.2009. As on the date of registration of First Information Report in the present case, the said proviso did not exist. Therefore, the appeal itself was not maintainable before the Court of learned Sessions Judge.

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:1588 CRL.RP No. 440 of 2021

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.100016/2014 (A), disposed of on 10.06.2014.

¶41

Accused No.2 to 4/respondent Nos.1 to 3 who were charge sheeted for offences punishable under Section 406, 409, 416, 418, 420, 463, 464, 467, 468 of IPC, were tried for the said offences in C.C.No.24206/2011 and were acquitted by the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru by Judgment and order dated 18.04.2016.

¶42

Aggrieved by the same, petitioner who is the de facto complainant had filed Criminal Appeal No.17/2018 before the Court of LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Along with the said appeal petitioner had also filed I.A.No.1 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 567 days caused in filing the appeal.

¶43

The Appellate Court had rejected I.A.No.1 and consequently, also had dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C.

¶44

Though Section 372 of Cr.P.C., does not provide for any time limitation to the victim to file an appeal as provided

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:1588 CRL.RP No. 440 of 2021

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

under Section 372 of Cr.P.C., as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, as on the date of registration of First Information Report in the present case, the proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C., was not in force. First Information Report in the present case was registered on 10.10.2009, whereas the proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C., has come into force with effect from 31.12.2009.

¶49

Under similar circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.100016/2014 (A), disposed of on 10.06.2014, has held that appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C., is not maintainable. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition.

¶50

11. Accordingly the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

(i) Criminal revision petition is dismissed .

¶53

(ii) The services rendered by learned Amicus Curiae is placed on record and her fee is fixed at Rs.10,000/-.

¶54

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶55

MR

Mohammed Asghar v. Riyaz @ Riyaz Ahmed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Asghar v. Riyaz @ Riyaz Ahmed

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

Pavan Vs State by

Shri Satya Narayan Tulysan Vs M/S Krishna Enterprises

M/S Sarvana Alloy Steels P Ltd. Vs M/S Xindia Steels Limited

State of Karnataka Vs Sri Govindaraju

State by Sarguru Police Station Vs Devendra Kumar Soni

T B Venkataswamy Vs H M Chandrashekharaiah