10-crma52-2024 & ors 27th August, 2026 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.52 OF 2024 WITH CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.202 OF 2024(FILING) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.201 OF 2024(FILING) AND CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.59 OF 2024 AND CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.510 OF 2024 (FILING) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.204 OF 2024(FILING) AND CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.67 OF 2024 WITH CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.199 OF 2024 (FILING) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.198 OF 2024(FILING) AND CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.516 OF 2024 (FILING) WITH CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.528 OF 2024 (FILING) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.515 OF 2024(FILING) 2026:BHC-GOA:1738 10-crma52-2024 & ors 27th August, 2026 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.52 OF 2024 WITH CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.202 OF 2024(FILING) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.201 OF 2024(FILING) DATTA RADHAKRISHNA RATABOLI, REPRESENTED BY HIS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY DINESH PANDURANG MATHA ... Applicant /Appellant Versus M/S. WELWORTH DEVELOPERS REP. BY ITS PARTNERS AS RESP. NOS.2 AND 3 AND 3 ORS. ... Respondents. AND CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.59 OF 2024 AND CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.510 OF 2024 (FILING) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.204 OF 2024(FILING) MAHESH PANDURANG MATHA REPRESENTED BY DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY DINESH PANDURANG MATHA …Applicant /Appellant. Versus M/S. WELWORTH DEVELOPERS REP. BY ITS PARTNERS AND 3 ORS. ... Respondents. AND CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.67 OF 2024 10-crma52-2024 & ors 27th August, 2026 WITH CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.199 OF 2024 (FILING) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.198 OF 2024(FILING) SANDHYA DINESH MANERKAR, REPRESENTED BY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY DINESH PANDURANG MATHA ... Applicant /Appellant. Versus M/S. WELWORTH DEVELOPERS REP. BY ITS PARTNERS AND 3 ORS. ... Respondents. AND CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.516 OF 2024 (FILING) WITH CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.528 OF 2024 (FILING) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.515 OF 2024(FILING) KUMUD PANDURANG MATHA REPRESENTED BY DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY DINESH PANDURANG MATHA ... Applicant /Appellant. Versus M/S. WELWORTH DEVELOPERS REP. BY ITS PARTNERS AND 3 ORS. ... Respondents. Mr. R. G. Ramani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pranav S. S. Kakodkar, Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant. Mr. Pravin N. Faldessai, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.4. CORAM: S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED: 27th August, 2026 10-crma52-2024 & ors 27th August, 2026 ORAL ORDER: 1. Learned Senior Advocate brought to notice of this Court the Order dated 12.02.2026 of the Supreme Court in case of M/s Everest Automobiles v/s. M/s Raji Enterprises1 and also another judgment of Supreme Court in case of Joseph Stephen And Others v/s. Santhanasamy And Others2, particularly, paragraphs 13.1 and 13.2 which read thus: “13.1. It cannot be disputed that now after the amendment in Section 372CrPC after 2009 and insertion of the proviso to Section 372CrPC, 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 378CrPC, subject to the grant of special leave to appeal by the High Court. 1 Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.12350/2024. 2 (2022) 13 SCC 115 10-crma52-2024 & ors 27th August, 2026 13.2. As observed by this Court in Mallikarjun Kodagali [Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 801] , 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 378CrPC 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 (ii) 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 372CrPC 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 (ii) is therefore answered accordingly.” 2. In light of aforesaid observations of Supreme Court, Applicants have remedy of filing appeal before Sessions Court. Hence, the present Applications stand disposed of with liberty to the Applicants to approach the Sessions Court in appeal. All contentions are kept open. The Applicants shall approach the Sessions Court within a period of four weeks from today. The Appellants shall also be at liberty to utilise the certified copies which are filed along with the present Applications/Appeals. 10-crma52-2024 & ors 27th August, 2026 3. The Applications stand disposed of. S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. Signed by: MARIA SUZANA REBELLO Designation: Personal Assistant Date: 28/08/2026 14:08:11