Karnataka High Court
CRL.A/970/2026 of M/S PARLE PRODUCTS PVT LTD Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 27 July 2026
CNR: KAHC010388322026 NC: 2026:KHC:38706 CRL.A No. 970 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 970 OF 2026 BETWEEN: M/S. PARLE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., ( A COMPANY REG. UNDER THE
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 970 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
M/S. PARLE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,
(A COMPANY REG. UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT)
REP. BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL
MANAGER - MR. SURESH N
REG OFFICE AT: NORTH END CROSSING,
VILE PARLE EAST, MUMBAI - 400 057.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HITESH GOWDA B.J, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PEENYA POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY,
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2.
HONNAPPA
S/O DURGAPRASAD
R/AT NO. 43, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
2ND CROSS, MANJUNATHANAGAR,
NAGASANDRA,
BANGALORE - 560 073.
3.
KARIBASAPPA BALAMURI @ BASAPPA
S/O NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.366/2,
Digitally
signed by
SUSHMA
LAKSHMI B
S
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
CHIKKABIDARAKALLU,
NAGASANDRA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 073.
4.
KEMPARAJU
S/O RAJASHEKARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
SHIRAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BANAWADI POST,
SOLURU HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA - 562 127.
5.
RAMESH
S/O SIVEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
NO. 73, CHENNANAYAKANAPALYA,
2ND STAGE, NAGASANDRA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 073.
6.
RAMAKRISHNA P.C.
S/O CHANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT DOMBARAHALLI VILLAGE,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 010.
7.
NAGESH
S/O NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
NO.726, 1ST MAIN,
MALLASANDRA,
T.DASARAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 057.
8.
PRASANNA KUMAR
S/O GURUSHANTAIAH
R/AT NO. 1413, 10TH CROSS,
HC-KAR
BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR,
T.DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 057.
9.
MAHESH
S/O NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
SIDDAPPANAVAR BUIDLING,
SIDDAPPA COMPOUND, REDDYKATTE,
CHANNANAYAKANAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 073.
10.
SHIVAKUMAR
S/O NANJUNDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT NO.32, MADAVARA VILLAGE,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 562 162.
11.
RAMESH
S/O GANGADHARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
NO.4, BABANNA LAYOUT,
MALLASANDRA, T.DASARAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 057.
12.
MANJUNATH.V
S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 490/8,
NEAR NEW CAMBRIDGE SCHOOL,
MALLASANDRA, T. DASARAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 057.
13.
APPAJIGOWDA
S/O GARUDAPPA,
R/AT KADAHALLI VILLAGE,
KUDURU HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA - 561 101.
HC-KAR
14.
SUBRAMANI. N
S/O NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 434, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
2ND CROSS, CHIKKABIDARAKALLU,
BANGALORE - 560 073.
15.
VENKATESHMURTHY
S/O VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
KUMBARAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHIKKABANAVARA POST,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
BANGALORE - 560 090.
16.
MANJUNATH
S/O MAHADEVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 881, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
4TH CROSS, KEMPEGOWDANAGARA,
T. DASARAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 057.
17.
MAHADEVASWAMI
S/O KALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
NO. 881, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
4TH CROSS, KEMPEGOWDANAGARA,
T. DASARAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 057.
18.
RAMAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O KARIGEERAIAH,
R/AT NO. 106, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
5TH CROSS, LOHITHANAGARA,
NELAMANGALA,
BANGALORE - 562 123.
HC-KAR
19.
B.S. RAVI
S/O SIDDAGANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT NO. 80, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
T. DASARAHALLI, 2ND CROSS,
BHUVANSHWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 057.
20.
K.B. SHANTHAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O BYRAPPAGOWDA
NO.1, 2ND STAGE,
CHENNANAYAKANAPALYA,
NAGASANDRA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 073.
21.
LAKSHMINARAYANA
S/O SIDDALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESIDING AT 1ST MAIN ROAD,
9TH CROSS, MANJUNATHANAGAR,
NAGASANDRA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 073.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.V. ANOOPKUMAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(4) CR.PC (FILED U/S
419(4) OF BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT
PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED
18.07.2025, AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR
THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 147, 427, 488, 188 R/W 149 OF
IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.
2. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.1, held in paragraph No.10 as under: “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 sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the Cr.PC.”
1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320
HC-KAR
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The parties shall appear before the jurisdictional Appellate Court / Sessions Court on 17.09.2026, without further notice of the concerned Court.
6. The Registry shall transmit the entire appeal papers, including the appeal memo, to the jurisdictional Sessions Court.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant shall have the liberty to carry out the amendment in the cause title and also the provisions thereof.
HC-KAR
8. For statistical purposes, this appeal stands disposed of. Ordered accordingly.
9. 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.
Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE
PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23