Karnataka High Court
Subhash S/O Anthappa Ganaga vs The State And Anr on 3 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:759
CRL.A No. 200162 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200162 OF 2022
(372(Cr.PC)/413(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
SUBHASH S/O ANTHAPPA GANAGA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O AMBRE LAYOUT, HUMANABAD,
DIST. BIDAR - 585330.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI ASADULLA AMANULLA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE THROUGH
TRAFFIC P.S. HUMANABAD,
DIST. BIDAR
(REPRESENTING BY LEARNED
ADDL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Digitally signed HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
by RAMESH
MATHAPATI AT KALABURAGI - 585105)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. VAIJINATH S/O RAMANNA MATHPATI,
KARNATAKA
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O SINDHANAKERA, TQ. HUMNABAD,
DIST. BIDAR - 585330.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SIDDALING PATIL, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI ANILKUMAR NAVADAGI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.372 OF CR.P.C,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED
BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
HUMNABAD IN C.C NO. 6/2016, ORDER DATED 20.07.2022
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:759
CRL.A No. 200162 of 2022
ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 279,
304(A) OF IPC, AND CONVICT THE ACCUSED.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
This appeal by the victim/complainant directed against
the acquittal judgment passed in C.C.No.06/2016 dated
20.07.2022 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Humnabad,
wherein the accused/respondent No.2 acquitted for the
offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC.
2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
respondent No.2/accused that, as per the provision of Section
372 of Cr.P.C, the victim shall prefer the appeal against the
acquittal order where the appeal ordinarily lies against the
order of conviction of such Court. In the case on hand, the
acquittal order passed by the learned Magistrate and against
the said order appeal ordinarily lies before the Sessions Court,
as such this appeal is not maintainable before this Court.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:759
On careful perusal of Section 372 of Cr.P.C, the same
reads as under:
372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise
provided - No appeal shall lie from any judgment
or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for
by this Code by any other law for the time being in
force:
[Provided that the 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,
and such appeal shall lie to the Court to
which an appeal ordinarily lies against the
order of conviction of such Court.]
3. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahabir
And Ors. vs. State Of Haryana in Criminal Appeal
Nos.5560-5561/2024, held in paragraph No.67 as under:
"67. In the present context, given the text of
Section 372 and the scheme of the Act, it is clear
that the proviso establishes an independent right,
and must be interpreted within that framework.
Section 372 forbids appeals unless otherwise
authorized by the Code, or by another law. The
proviso, however, states that the victim shall have
the right to appeal under certain circumstances.
Given the rule enacted in Section 372, it cannot be
said that the proviso to that provision carves out an
exception to the rule. According to the rule in
Section 372, appeals must be in accordance with
the Code; according to the proviso - which is itself
part of the Code - victims have the right to appeal
under certain circumstances. At various other
places in the CrPC, appeal procedures are specified.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:759
For instance, Section 378 stipulates the procedure
in case of appeals from acquittal, and Section
378(3) specifies that "no appeal under sub-section
(1) or sub-section (2) shall be entertained except
with leave of the High Court." The proviso to
Section 372 dispenses with the requirement of
leave in case it is the victim who is appealing. From
the scheme of the Act, therefore, it seems clear
that the proviso is better understood to be one of
the many provisions governing appeals under
Chapter 29 of the CrPC. While Section 372 enacts
that no appeal shall lie except as provided for by
the Code, it refers to the various provisions of
Chapter 29, including the proviso, each of which
prescribe the requirements and procedures for
appeals under different circumstances. The Page 27
of 45 proviso, therefore, is not an exception to
Section 372, but a stand-alone legal provision."
4. As per the findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
above case it is clear that the victim would be entitle to file an
appeal before the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies
against the order of conviction and therefore the present appeal
is not maintainable before this Court.
5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed by reserving
liberty to appellant to approach appropriate forum.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
HKV
CT: PS
