- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4307 CRL.RP No. 511 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.511 OF 2019 BETWEEN: ` DR S LINGARAJ S/O SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS NO.32/A, 2ND CROSS SRI MARUTHI LAYOUT VASANTHPURA BANGALORE-61 ALSO AT CHILDREN SPECIALIST OMKAR CLINIC NO:43, VASANTHPURA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE PRESENTLY R/AT NO: 34/1, KONANKUNTE KANAKAPURA ROAD BENGALURU-62 …PETITIONER (BY SRI K R NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND: T SRINATH S/O SRINIVASAIAH T R AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS NO:142, 9TH CROSS 3RD MAIN ROAD Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4307 CRL.RP No. 511 of 2019 SOUDHAMINI LAYOUT KONANKUNTE BENGALURU-62 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI C KRISHNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT BEING PASSED BY THE APPELLATE COURT IN CRL.A.NO.664/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 56th ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-56) VIDE ANNEXURE-A DATED 20.02.2019 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The main arguments of the revision petitioner’s counsel that the First Appellate Court committed an error in exercising the jurisdiction under Section 372 of Cr.P.C setting aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.41837/2010 dated 04.06.2014 since provision invoked in filing the appeal is not correct. The counsel for the petitioner also brought to notice of this Court to the Circular issued by - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4307 CRL.RP No. 511 of 2019 this Court in this regard. In the said Circular referred the order passed by this Court in Crl.A.No.1624/2021 dated 06.03.2023 wherein, this Court directed the Sessions Judges to entertain the appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C and not under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the order impugned is erroneous and it requires to be set aside. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that respondent under the impression that in view of the amendment made in 2009, respondent can file an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C and appeal has filed and same has been entertained. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that if liberty is given to file an appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. in view of the notification of this Court condoning the delay in filing the appeal, the respondent will file the appeal under appropriate provision. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material available on record, it discloses that, admittedly the private compliant was filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4307 CRL.RP No. 511 of 2019 Section 138 N.I. Act and cognizance was taken and same was registered as criminal case and went on trial and ultimately dismissed the complaint acquitting the petitioner herein. The said judgment is challenged before the First Appellate Court invoking Section 372 of Cr.P.C instead of Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. The main contention of the counsel for the petitioner that in the appeal, ought not to have invoked Section 372 of Cr.P.C and law is also settled that State can file an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C against inadequacy of sentence and also fine and also for lesser punishment and the same is not available to the private complainant who filed the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C invoking Section 138 of N.I. Act and ought to have filed an appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C against the acquittal order and not filed the same and the First Appellate Court erroneously entertained the appeal filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C and hence, the same requires to be set aside giving liberty to the respondent to file an appeal under appropriate provision and if any delay in approaching Court, the same has to be considered leniently by the concerned First Appellate Court. With this observation, the order impugned is set aside and liberty is given to the respondent to file an appeal - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4307 CRL.RP No. 511 of 2019 under appropriate provision. Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN