- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48629 CRL.A No. 1739 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1739 OF 2021 (A) BETWEEN: SMT. MANI KRISHNASWAMY W/O. LATE D.R. KRISHNASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT NO.12371, SARATOGA CREEK DRIVE, SARATOGA, C.A.95070 USA. (SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES) 1(A) SHRI. SATYANARAYANA SIMHA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O LATE D.R. KRISHNASWAMY, R/AT 12371, SARATOGA CREEK DRIVE SARATOGA CA, 95070, USA. 1(B) SHRI. ARUN KRISHNASWAMY SIMHA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE D.R. KRISHNASWAMY, R/AT NO.1590, ELWOOD DRIVE, LAS GATOS, CA 95032, USA. BOTH REP. BY THEIR SPA HOLDER, SRI. MANJUNATH C.K. AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O SHRI. R.KRISHNAPPA, R/AT NO.4, JYOTHI NILAYA, 4TH CROSS, CHOWDAIAH BLOCK, R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 032. Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48629 CRL.A No. 1739 of 2021 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. DHANANJAY JOSHI, SR. COUNSEL A/W SMT. KAVITHA DAMODARAN, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI. B.V. DWARAKANATH S/O. LATE B.S. VISHVESHWARA SHASTRY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, NO.10, 4TH CROSS, SHANKARAPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 004. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.R. NANJUNDA GOWDA M.R., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 21.06.2021, PASSED BY THE XVI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, AT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.11119/2016 AND CONSEQUENTLY CONVICT THE RESPONDENTS AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO BEAR AND PAY THE ENTIRE COSTS OF THIS APPEAL AND ETC.,. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 17.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48629 CRL.A No. 1739 of 2021 CAV JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. 2. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.1, held in paragraph No.10 as under: “10. As already noted, the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC was inserted in the statute book only with effect from 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such insertion must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the victim of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the victim of an offence is a complainant, he can still proceed under the proviso to Section 372 and need 1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48629 CRL.A No. 1739 of 2021 not advert to sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the Cr.PC.” 3. On careful reading of the judgment of the Apex Court supra, it is evident that, the complainant being victim has to file an appeal against the order of acquittal before the Jurisdictional Sessions Court by invoking Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 4. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, in Celestial supra, the appeal by the complainant against the order of acquittal is not maintainable before this Court. Since this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merit, the appeal is transferred to jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court. 5. The parties shall appear before the jurisdictional Appellate Court / Sessions Court on 13.01.2026, without further notice of the concerned Court. 6. The Registry shall transmit entire appeal papers including appeal memo to the jurisdictional Sessions Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48629 CRL.A No. 1739 of 2021 7. The learned counsel for the appellant shall have the liberty to carry out the amendment in the cause title and also the provisions thereof. 8. For statistical purpose, this appeal stands disposed off. 9. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NM List No.: 19 Sl No.: 14