CRL OP/31169/2026 of Sharmila Vs The State rep by the Inspector of Police on 11 November 2026

Order

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner/victim, seeking special leave to prefer an appeal before this

Court against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Allikulam, Chennai in S.C.No.417 of 2022 by judgment dated 24.07.2026.

2. The victim [PW1] in the aforesaid Sessions Case, wherein the 2nd respondent herein/accused was tried for the offences under Sections 326 / 307, 498A and 506(ii) of the IPC, has preferred the above appeal, aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal. She has filed the captioned petition seeking leave to file an appeal.

3. When this Court asked the learned counsel for the petitioner/victim as to why he had to seek leave to file an appeal, he cited the judgment of a learned single Judge [Hon’ble Mr.Justice M. Nirmal Kumar] of this Court in Crl.A.No.592 of 2016 dated 19.08.2026, in Sreekanth vs. Saroja @ Sadhana and another, in which this Court had observed as follows: “12.Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Satya Pal Singh [(2015) 15 SCC 613] and Subash Chand [(2013) 1 SCC 17], held that an appeal against acquittal, preferred both under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. and under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., can be entertained only after obtaining the requisite leave, and such leave can be granted only by High Court.

13. In view of the above, any appeal against acquittal preferred by a complainant under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. or by a victim under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. can be filed only before the High Court, along with an application seeking leave.”

4. Since this Court was prima facie of the view that a victim in a case instituted on a police report has a right of appeal, in view of the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., this Court had asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to produce all the relevant judgments and had also appointed Mr. Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam, learned Senior Counsel, as Amicus Curiae.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the judgment of this Court in the above referred appeal is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2019) 2 SCC 752 and subsequent judgments insofar as the right of the victim to prefer an appeal in a case constituted on a police report.

6. The learned counsels brought to the notice of this Court the following cases:

(i) Subash Chand v. State (Delhi Administration [(2013) 2 SCC 17]

(ii) Satya Pal Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others [(2015) 15 SCC 613];

(iii) Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752;

(iv) K.Rajalingam v. R.Suganthalakshmi [Madras High Court – Crl.A.Nos.89 & 90 of 2020 and Crl.R.C.Nos.494 & 536 of 2019 dated 28.05.2020];

(v) Joseph Stephen and Others v. Santhanasamy and Others [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 83);

(vi) A.Kaliyaperumal v. Superintendent of Police [2024 SCC OnLine Mad 4279];

(vii) Asian Paints Ltd. v. Ram Babu & Another [ 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 697];

(viii) Khem Singh (D) through LRs v. State of Uttaranchal & Another [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 828];

(ix) M/s.Celestium Financial v. A.Gnanasekaran etc., [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 666];

(x) M/s. Everest Automobiles v. M/s.Rajit Enterprises [2026 LiveLaw (SC) 155];

(xi) Sreekanth vs. Saroja @ Sadhana and another [Madras High Court - Crl.A.No.592 of 2016 dated 19.08.2026];

7. Both the learned counsels would submit that a reading of all the abovesaid judgments would clearly indicate that there is a distinction between the 'complainant' and the 'victim', and that a 'complainant' in a case instituted on a complaint, has to be dealt with differently and cannot be deemed to be a 'victim', who would be entitled to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., and that the 'complainant' would have to file an appeal only before this Court after obtaining leave in terms of Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C.

8. At the outset, this Court wishes to make it clear that this case is not a case instituted on a complaint. The petitioner/appellant is a victim in a case instituted on a police report. No leave is required for a victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., which is clear on a plain reading of the said proviso. However, in a case instituted on a complaint, the question as to whether a complainant who is also a victim is entitled to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., or not has been debated not only by this Court, but also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases.

9. There is no need for such a debate in this case, since, as stated above, the case is instituted on a police report. But this order is necessitated because of the observations made by my learned brother, Justice M.Nirmal Kumar, which is extracted above. Due to the said order, the Registry is now insisting on the filing of a Special Leave Petition in an appeal against acquittal filed by the victim in a case instituted on police report also.

10. The learned brother, Justice M.Nirmal Kumar, who had made the aforesaid observations had relied upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.Everest Automobiles's case [supra], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had doubted the proposition of law laid down by another Co-ordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.Celestium Financial's case [supra], in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the complainant in a case instituted on a complaint, if is a victim, would also be entitled to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.Everest Automobiles's case [supra] felt that the above observations are contrary to the earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satya Pal Singh's case [supra] and Subhash Chand's case [supra].

11. Justice M.Nirmal Kumar, therefore, observed that in Satya Pal Singh's case [supra] and Subhash Chand's case [supra], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that even a victim, who prefers an appeal under proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., also has to apply for leave from the High Court; that if there are two conflicting judgments of the Co-ordinate Benches of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the High Courts are bound by the earlier view; and by saying so, the learned Judge, had made the aforesaid observations.

12. It appears that the other judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were not brought to the notice of the learned brother, Justice M.Nirmal Kumar, which would make it very clear that if a victim, in a case instituted on a police report, prefers an appeal against acquittal, no leave is required, as he has a right of appeal.

13. Before we deal with those cases, this Court intends to narrate the manner in which the provisions were interpreted at various stages by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(i) In Satya Pal Singh's case [supra], the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case which was instituted on a police report. This judgment was rendered by two Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Judges held that though the proviso gave a right of appeal to the victim, the said right is subject to the other provisions of the Cr.P.C., which requires leave to be obtained from the High Court to challenge the judgment of acquittal.

(ii) In Subhash Chand's case [supra], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dealt with the amendment made to Section 378(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C., which permits the District Magistrate to direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the Court of Session from an order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence. In this judgment, neither the right of the victim nor the need for the victim to seek leave to file an appeal, was dealt with.

(iii) In M/s.Celestium Financial's case [supra], the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case instituted on a complaint for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even in a case instituted on a complaint, if the complainant is a victim, he would have a right to prefer an appeal by virtue of the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. This view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was doubted in M/s.Everest Automobiles's case [supra] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that the distinction between the 'victim' and the 'complainant', has to be borne in mind.

(iv) In all these cases, except for Satya Pal Singh's case [supra], the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with cases instituted on a complaint. In fact, a Full Bench of this Court in S.Ganapathi v. N.Senthilvel, reported in 2016 (3) MLJ (Crl) 641, had held that a complainant can also be a victim and therefore, entitled to prefer an appeal in terms of the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. Another Full Bench of this Court in K.Rajalingam’s case [supra] had held that a

complainant, although a victim, cannot be equated with a victim in a police report and therefore, an appeal against acquittal in a case instituted on a complaint would lie only to the High Court, after obtaining Special Leave to Appeal.

(v) After M/s.Celestium Financial's case [supra], another learned Judge of this Court [Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.K.Ilanthiraiyan] in SPAC Tapioca Products (I) Limited's case [supra] had held that a complainant in a case instituted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is entitled to file an appeal before the Sessions Court and directed the Registry not to number any appeal against acquittal instituted after 04.07.2025.

(vi) This Court makes it clear that in this case the said issue does not arise as this Court is not dealing with an appeal against acquittal in a case instituted on a complaint.

(vii) The learned brother, Justice M.Nirmal Kumar, was dealing with a case instituted on a complaint. The observations in his order, which is extracted above, is that an appeal against acquittal preferred under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., can be filed only before the High Court after obtaining leave. The above observation therefore, suggests that a victim in a case instituted on a police report has to be treated on par with the complainant and has to seek leave from this Court to challenge the judgment of acquittal.

(viii) The said observation is not in conformity with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As stated above, certain other judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were not brought to the notice of the learned brother, Justice M.Nirmal Kumar.

(ix) In Mallikarjun Kodagali's case [supra], this very question came up for consideration. In that judgment, authored by three Hon'ble Judges, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to various provisions and decisions of various Courts including Satya Pal Singh's case [supra], had held as follows: “74. Putting the Declaration to practice, it is quite obvious that the victim of an offence is entitled to a variety of rights. Access to mechanisms of justice and redress through formal procedures as provided for in national legislation, must include the right to file an appeal against an order of acquittal in a case such as the one that we are presently concerned with. Considered in this light, there is no doubt that the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. must be given life, to benefit the victim of an offence.

75. Under the circumstances, on the basis of the plain language of the law and also as interpreted by several High Courts and in addition the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations, it is quite clear to us that a victim as defined in Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. would be entitled to file an appeal before the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction. It must follow from this that the appeal filed by Kodagali before the High Court was maintainable and ought to have been considered on its own merits.

76. As far as the question of the grant of special leave is concerned, once again, we need not be overwhelmed by submissions made at the Bar. The language of the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. is quite clear, particularly when it is contrasted with the language of Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. The text of this provision is quite clear and it is confined to an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon a complaint. The word ‘complaint’ has been defined in Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. and refers to any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate. This has nothing to do with the lodging or the registration of an FIR, and therefore it is not at all necessary to consider the effect of a victim being the complainant as far as the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. is concerned.”

(x) Following this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joseph Stephen's case [supra] had held as follows: “10. Now so far as issue no.2, namely, in a case where no appeal is brought though appeal lies under the Code, whether revision application still to be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed, the answer lies in sub-section (4) of Section 401 Cr.P.C. itself. Sub-section (4) of Section 401 Cr.P.C. reads as under: “(4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed.” 10.1 It cannot be disputed that now after the amendment in Section 372 Cr.P.C. after 2009 and insertion of proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., a victim has a statutory right of appeal against the order of acquittal. Therefore, no revision shall be entertained at the instance of the victim against the order of acquittal in a case where no appeal is preferred and the victim is to be relegated to file an appeal. Even the same would be in the interest of the victim himself/herself as while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the scope would be very limited, however, while exercising the appellate jurisdiction, the appellate Court would have a wider jurisdiction than the revisional jurisdiction. Similarly, in a case where an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint, the complainant (other than victim) can prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal as provided under sub-section (4) of Section 378 Cr.P.C., subject to the grant of special leave to appeal by the High Court. 10.2 As observed by this Court in the case of Mallikarjun

Kodagali

(supra), so far as the victim is concerned, the victim has not to pray

for grant of special leave to appeal, as the victim has a statutory right of appeal under Section 372

proviso and the proviso to

Section 372

does not stipulate

any condition of obtaining special leave to appeal like sub- section (4) of Section 378

Cr.P.C. in the case of a complainant and in a case where an order

of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint. The right provided to the victim to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal is an absolute right. Therefore, so far as issue no.2 is concerned, namely, in a case where the victim and/or the complainant, as the case may be, has not preferred and/or availed the remedy of appeal against the order of acquittal as provided under Section 372 Cr.P.C. or Section 378(4), as the case may be, the revision application against the order of acquittal at the instance of the victim or the complainant, as the case may be, shall not be entertained and the victim or the complainant, as the case may be, shall be relegated to prefer the appeal as provided under Section 372 or Section 378(4), as the case may be. Issue no.2 is therefore answered accordingly.” [emphasis supplied]

(xi) Similarly, in Asian Paints Limited's case [supra], the Hon'ble Court had held as follows: “49. The law on the issue has been enunciated by the 3-Judge Bench, by a majority of 2:1, in Mallikarjun Kodagali (supra), which squarely applies to the instant matter. The exposition on the term ‘victim’ by 3 learned Judges in Paragraph 23 of Jagjeet Singh (supra) has already been taken note of by us hereinabove, with which we respectfully concur.

50. We may also indicate that the view taken by us that the right of a victim to prefer an appeal as granted under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, which was inserted vide Section 29 of Act V of 2009, with effect from 31.12.2009, is not restricted by any other provision of the CrPC. It serves the salutary purpose of safeguarding the rights of the victim. Upon detailed discussion, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mahabir v State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 184 observed: ‘53. Therefore, by the aforesaid provision a right has been created in favour of the victim, which was not existing earlier in the Code, i.e., that a victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation. The plain reading of the statement of objects and reasons for introducing the proviso to Section 372 CrPC makes it clear that it wanted to confer certain rights on the victims. It has been noted therein that the victims are the worst sufferers in a crime, and they don't have

much role in the court proceedings. They need to be given certain “rights” and compensation, so that there is no distortion of the criminal justice system. This, by itself, is clear that the object of adding this proviso is to create a right in favour of the victim to prefer an appeal as a matter of right. It not only extends to challenge the order of acquittal, but such appeal can also be filed by the victim if the accused is convicted for a lessor offence or if the inadequate compensation has been imposed.

54. Thus, it is clear as per the golden rule of interpretation, that the ‘proviso’ is a substantive enactment, and is not merely excepting something out of or qualifying what was excepting or goes before. Therefore, by adding the ‘proviso’ in

Section 372

of

CrPC by this amendment, a right has been created in favour of the victim.’ (emphasis supplied)”

(xii) Therefore, the consistent view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to Satya Pal Singh's case [supra] also, is that the victim in a case instituted on police report, has a right of appeal against acquittal in terms of the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C.

14. All the above judgments have not been brought to the notice of the learned brother, Justice M.Nirmal Kumar. This Court is bound by the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mallikarjun Kodagali’s case [supra], Joseph Stephen's case [supra] and Asian Paints Limited's case [supra]. Hence, there cannot be any doubt or quarrel with the proposition that a victim in a case instituted on a police report, has a right of appeal against the judgment of acquittal and need not obtain leave. The observations of the learned brother, Justice M.Nirmal Kumar, to the contrary in Crl.A.No.592 of 2016, therefore, is not in conformity with the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and hence, those observations are not binding on this Court. Therefore, the Registry shall not insist upon leave petitions to entertain an appeal filed by the victim in a case instituted on a police report. As regards appeals against acquittal in cases instituted on a complaint, since there are different views, this Court expresses no opinion in this case, as that is not the issue before this Court.

15. In view of the above observations, this Court holds that the instant Criminal Original Petition is redundant and hence, the same is closed. The Registry is directed to number the appeal and list the same for hearing in the usual course.

16. This Court records its appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Mr.Swami Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam, learned Amicus Curiae. 11.11.2026 Index : yes/no Speaking /Non-speaking order Neutral citation : yes/no Issue Order copy by 13.11.2026 ars

To

1. The Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Allikulam, Chennai

2. The Inspector of Police, K-11, CMBT Police Station, Koyambedu, Chennai - 600 107

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

SUNDER MOHAN J. ars Pre-delivery order in CRL OP No. 31169 of 2026 AND CRL A SR NO. 62590 OF 2026 11.11.2026