Karnataka High Court
CRL.A/237/2022 of SMT KANAKA LATHA SINGH Vs SRI VINAYAK B GULHANE on 19 June 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:30480 CRL.A No. 237 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 237 OF 2022 ( A ) BETWEEN: SMT. KANAKA LATHA SINGH W/O SRI. SANJAY SINGH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, NO.G-21, 2ND
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 237 OF 2022 (A)
BETWEEN:
SMT. KANAKA LATHA SINGH
W/O SRI. SANJAY SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
NO.G-21, 2ND FLOOR, UPKAR GREEN FIELD,
ATTIBELE CHECK POST,
BANGALORE-562107.
PHONE NO.9611296932.
…APPELLANT
(BY MS. ANINDITA CHAKRABORTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. VINAYAK B. GULHANE
S/O B.B. GULHANE,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
M/S. EXIDE INDUSTRIES LTD.,
MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR,
AUTO BATTERY MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT,
SURVEY NO.246, CHICHURAKANAPALLI,
Digitally
signed by
SUSHMA
LAKSHMI
B S
Location:
High Court
of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
SEVAGANAPALLI PANCHAYATH,
HOSUR TALUK,
KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT – 653 103.
ALSO RESIDING AT:
POST-BORI, TALUK-CHANDUR(RLY)
AMARAVATHI DISTRICT,
MAHARASHTRA – 444 708.
…RESPONDENT
----
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
1.QUASH
AND
SET
ASIDE
THE
IMPUGNED
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.
JUDGMENT
C.C.NO.31980/2018 DATED 17.01.2022 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE XV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU AND CONSEQUENTLY CONVICT THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT BY IMPOSING MAXIMUM FINE AND BY ALSO AWARDING SUBSTANTIAL SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT OF ONE YEAR AS PROVIDED UNDER LAW, ALTERNATIVELY AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. 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 14.07.2026, 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.
HC-KAR
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.
8. For statistical purposes, this appeal stands disposed of. Ordered accordingly. 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
NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5