Uttam Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4541 MP

                                   1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT JABALPUR
                                BEFORE
              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
                          ON THE 30th OF MARCH, 2022

                   CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5126 of 2019

        Between:-
        UTTAM PATEL S/O SHIVDAYAL PATEL , AGED
        ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O
        SERVAI TORIYA, POLICE STATION      CENT
        DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                  .....APPELLANT
        (BY SHRI L.C. CHOURASIYA, ADVOCATE )

        AND

1.      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. P.S.CENT
        POLICE STATION CENT, DISTRICT SAGAR
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.      MANSHARAM S/O PRAN SINGH PATEL , AGED
        ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O BERKHEDA KHUMAN,
        POLICE STATION CENT (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.      BHAJJU @ MAHARAJ SINGH S/O PRAN SINGH
        PATEL , AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O BERKHEDA
        KHUMAN, POLICE STATION CENT (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

                                                               .....RESPONDENTS
        (RESPONDENT NO.1 STATE BY SHRI ATIN VISHWAKARMA )

      T h is appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
                                    ORDER

Record of the trial Court perused.

T his appeal has been filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 17.05.2019 passed by learned JMFC, Sagar (M.P.), whereby learned JMFC has acquitted the accused/respondent nos.2 & 3 from commission of offence under Sections 294, 323/34, 324/34, 506-II of I.P.C.

Learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance in the case of Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) Represented Through Legal Representative Vs. State of Karnataka & others, (2019) 2 SCC 752 has submitted that victim has a right to file an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. before the High Court. Therefore, he has filed this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by

learned JMFC, Sagar before this Court.

The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant appears misleading and misconceived.

In this regard, the proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. is apt and

unambiguous. Section 372 of Cr.P.C. read 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 Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing indequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.

The facts of Mallikarjun (supra) are not applicable in the present case as in that case the appeal was filed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Session Court and not by the Court of Magistrate.

The language of the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. is quite clear. It is clear that there is no provision for any appeal to the High Court against the orders/judgments of conviction and acquittal passed by the Magistrate in a case lodged or registered on the basis of an FIR. The appeal arising out of original judgments/orders of acquittal or of conviction for lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation passed by the Magistrate shall lie to the Court of Session in view of the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. As per Section 374(3), any person convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class or sentenced under Section 325, or in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under section 360 by any Magistrate, the appeal lies to the Court of Session.

In the case in hand, the victim lodged FIR against the respondent nos.2 & 3/accused for uttering filthy words and for voluntarily causing simple hurt and criminal intimidation. The FIR was lodged in P.S. Cantt Sagar and charge sheet was filed by the police. After trial, learned JMFC acquitted the accused persons.

As per the proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction to such Court i.e. Court of Session and not the High Court. Only in case of complaint defined in Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. where allegations were made orally or in writing to a Magistrate in that case only, in case of acquittal the appeal shall lie before the High Court under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C.

I n view of above discussion, this appeal filed by the victim against judgment/order of acquittal passed by Magistrate in a criminal case is not

maintainable before the High Court.

Accordingly, this appeal being not maintainable, is dismissed.

(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE Digitally signed b by BIJU BABY Date: 2022.03.31 18:06:07 +05'30'