[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Abbas vs Mohammed Jakir Hussain on 21 January, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:3454
CRL.RP No. 2004 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 2004 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI ABBAS
S/O SADU BYARI
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT DOOR NO.2-T-51/4 SHAMMAS
MANZIL, DAYAMBU HOUSE
S.H. NAGAR, KANNUR
MANGALORE, D.K.- 575 007.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI HARSHA G, ADV., FOR
SRI SACHIN B.S, ADV.)
AND:
1. MOHAMMED JAKIR HUSSAIN
S/O ABOOBAKKAR
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT MULIHITLU, YEMMEKERE
Digitally signed
BOLAR, MANGALURU - 575 001.
by NANDINI M
S 2. MOHAMMED IMRAN
Location: HIGH S/O ABOOBAKKAR
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT MULIHITHLU, YEMMEKERE
BOLARA, MANGALURU - 575 001.
3. MR. AYAZ
S/O ABDUL AZEEZ
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT GADIYARA MANE
PARAMOGARU POST
BANTWALA - 574 241.
4. MRS. SUMAYYA
D/O ABOOBAKKAR
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:3454
CRL.RP No. 2004 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGED 40 YEARS
R/AT MULIHITHLU, YEMMEKERE
BOLARA, MANGALURU - 575 001.
5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MANGALORE RURAL POLICE
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401(FILED U/S.438 R/W
SEC.442 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT DATED 18.11.2025 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.476/2025 ON
THE FILE OF THE III ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
MANGALURU THEREBY DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING
THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED 09.06.2025 IN
C.C.NO.1183/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE III JMFC MANGALURU AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW CRL.A.NO.476/2025.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. Complainant is before this Court in this revision petition
filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.PC with a
prayer to set aside the order dated 18.11.2025 passed in
Crl.A.No.476/2025 by the Court of III Addl. District & Sessions
Judge, Mangaluru.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Since the
order impugned was passed without issuing notice to the
NC: 2026:KHC:3454
HC-KAR
respondents, I am of the opinion that notice in this petition to
the respondents would not be necessary.
3 Facts leading to filing of this revision petition for the
purpose of disposal of this petition narrated briefly are,
respondent nos.1 to 4 herein were charge-sheeted for the
offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 114
read with 34 IPC and they were tried for the said offences in
CC.No.1183/2020 by III JMFC Court, Mangaluru. Vide the
judgment and order dated 09.06.2025 passed in
CC.No.1183/2020, the Trial Court had acquitted respondent
nos.1 to 4 herein of the charge-sheeted offences and aggrieved
by the same, petitioner herein who is the defacto complainant
had filed Crl.A.No.476/2025 before the Court of III Addl.
District & Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, along with IA.No.1 filed
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer to condone
the delay of 84 days caused in filing the appeal.
4 The Appellate Court vide the order impugned has rejected
IA.No.1 on the ground that no sufficient cause is shown for
condoning the delay, and consequently, dismissed the criminal
appeal. Aggrieved by the said order dated 18.11.2025 passed
NC: 2026:KHC:3454
HC-KAR
in Crl.A.No.476/2025, the defacto complainant is before this
Court.
5 Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the
grounds urged in the petition, submits that appeal filed by the
petitioner was under Section 372 of Cr.PC. No period of
limitation is provided under the statute for filing an appeal
under Section 372 Cr.PC. Inadvertently, IA.No.1 was filed along
with the criminal appeal to condone the delay caused in filing
the criminal appeal. The Appellate Court was not justified in
dismissing the appeal on the ground that petitioner had not
satisfactorily explained the delay of 84 days in filing the appeal.
Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
6 Section 372 of Cr.PC 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 or 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
NC: 2026:KHC:3454
HC-KAR
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."
7. The proviso to the said Section which has come into
effect from 31.12.2009 provides that the victim shall have a
right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the court
acquitting the accused or convicting the accused 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.
8. It is not in dispute that in the present case, the appeal
against the order of conviction from the Trial Court would lie to
the jurisdictional Sessions Court, D.K. Mangaluru. Section 372
of Cr.PC does not provide for any period of limitation for filing
the appeal, nor there is any provision under the Limitation Act
prescribing the period of limitation for filing an appeal under
Section 372 of Cr.PC by the victim.
10. The Division Bench of High Court of Bombay placing
reliance on the judgment passed by various other High Courts,
NC: 2026:KHC:3454
HC-KAR
has held in the case of RANJANA SHANTILAL SURYAWANSHI
VS JAIPRAKASH TULSIRAM GUPTA - 2020 CrLJ 3576, that
there is no limitation provided under the statute for filing an
appeal under Section 372 of Cr.PC by the victim. In the said
case, it was also held that victim includes guardian or legal
heir.
11. Even otherwise, IA.No.1 was filed with a prayer to
condone the delay of 84 days caused in filing the appeal. In my
considered opinion, the said delay was satisfactorily explained
in the affidavit which was filed in support of the prayer made in
the application. The Appellate Court was, therefore, not
justified in dismissing IA.No.1 filed in Crl.A.No.476/2025 with a
prayer to condone the delay of 84 days in filing the appeal, and
consequently also dismissing the appeal. Under the
circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the following order:
12. Criminal revision petition is allowed. The impugned order
dated 18.11.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.476/2025 by the Court of
III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, is set aside, and
NC: 2026:KHC:3454
HC-KAR
the matter is remitted to the Appellate Court to consider the
appeal on merits in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KK
