17.REVN.154.2018.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 154 OF 2018 Anisa Khanam wife of Rafique Ahmad ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents *** Mr. Jogdand Patil Vijay B., Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. A.A.A. Khan, APP for Respondent – State. Mr. Manish P. Tripathi, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 5. *** CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 07, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. Jogdand Patil, learned counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Khan, learned APP for the Respondent – State, and Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 to 5. 2. The Applicant is the original complainant who has filed a private complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 504, 506, 34, 323 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (J.M.F.C.) at Selu, Dist. Parbhani. The learned JMFC, after recording the evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, vide its judgment and order dated 07th October 2014, acquitted the accused persons. Shrikant Malani 2026:BHC-AUG:41375 17.REVN.154.2018.odt 3. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the Applicant herein approached the learned Sessions Court by filing an Appeal under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. The said Criminal Appeal came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No.101 of 2014. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Sessions Judge, vide its order dated 18th April 2018, was pleased to dismiss the Appeal for want of jurisdiction. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the Applicant has approached this Court under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. 4. Mr. Jogdand Patil, learned counsel for the Applicant, submits that the learned Sessions Court, while dismissing the Appeal, has not considered the provisions of law in their proper perspective. The learned Sessions Court, though it passed a very detailed order, however, was pleased to dismiss the Appeal for want of jurisdiction. The Appeal was not considered on the merits. He further submits that since he has the right to prefer an Appeal challenging the acquittal order under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., therefore, this matter be remitted back to the learned Sessions Court for its fresh decision. 5. Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Shrikant Malani 17.REVN.154.2018.odt Nos.2 to 5, however, opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the Applicant. According to him, the judgment was delivered in the year 2018 and since then this matter has been pending before this Court. It is therefore submitted that the instant Criminal Revision Application be decided on its own merits. 6. After going through the order passed by the learned Sessions Court, it appears that the learned Sessions Court, in its judgment, was pleased to observe that the Applicant has an appropriate remedy of approaching the High Court under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. for filing an Appeal against the acquittal. According to the learned Sessions Court, the Appeal against the acquittal under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. is not maintainable; therefore, for want of jurisdiction, the Appeal came to be dismissed. After going through the order, I find that the aforesaid order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. As per Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., a right of Appeal is provided to the victim for challenging the order of acquittal. 7. In that view of the matter, the order needs to be quashed and set aside by remanding the matter afresh to the Appellate Court. Hence, the Criminal Revision Application is allowed. The order dated Shrikant Malani 17.REVN.154.2018.odt 18th April 2018, passed by the learned Sessions Court, is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Sessions Court with a direction to decide the Appeal afresh within a period of six months from today. 8. The Criminal Revision Application is disposed of accordingly. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not made any findings on the merits of the matter. The learned Appellate Court is free to decide the Appeal on its own merits. ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. ) Shrikant Malani