Karnataka High Court
CRL.A/889/2026 of SMT KANTHAMMA Vs SMT LAKSHMIDEVAMMA on 5 June 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:26684 CRL.A No. 889 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 889 OF 2026 ( A ) BETWEEN: SMT KANTHAMMA D/O LATE DODDATHAYAMMA W/O VENKATARAMANAIAH P, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 889 OF 2026 (A)
BETWEEN:
SMT KANTHAMMA
D/O LATE DODDATHAYAMMA
W/O VENKATARAMANAIAH P,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.33,
BYATHA (V AND P)
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DIST – 560 089.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MURALIDARA R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
D/O LATE DODDATHAYAMMA,
W/O LATE. B.KEMPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE – 560 064.
Digitally
signed by
SUSHMA
LAKSHMI
B S
Location:
High
Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
2.
SRI.ANAND.N.K.
S/O LATE.B. KEMPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE – 560 064.
3.
SMT.KALA
W/O SRI.ANAND.N.K.
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE – 560 064.
4.
SMT.SUKHANYA
D/O LATE. B. KEMPANNA,
W/O SRI.MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.340,
OPP. DONNE BIRRIYANI HOME,
YELAHANKA MAIN ROAD,
BAGALURU,
BANGALORE NORTH – 562 149.
5.
SMT.AMBUJA.N.K.
D/O LATE.B. KEMPANNA
W/O BRI.RAMACHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
NO.22/5-5, 1ST CROSS,
PIPELINE KALYANA MANTAPA ROAD,
MATHIKERE, NEAR LAKSHMI THEATRE,
BENGALURU – 560 054.
HC-KAR
6.
SMT.BHARATHI.N K
D/O LATE.B. KEMPANNA,
W/O SRI KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NEAR RAILWAY GATE,
NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH – 560 064.
7.
SRI.MANJUNATH.N K
S/O LATE.B. KEMPANNA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK – 560 064.
…RESPONDENTS
----
CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR
THE APPELLANT/S PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO ADMIT THIS CRL. APPEAL FILED U/S.378(4) OF
CPR. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED
26.02.2026 PASSED IN C.C.NO.20748/2015 BY THE VII ACJM, BENGALURU. CONVICT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 7 FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 200, 199, 415, 420, 417 OF IPC IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
HC-KAR
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
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 30.06.2026, 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.: 18