- 1 - NC: 2026:KHC:29186 CRL.A No. 987 of 2024 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 987 OF 2024 (A) BETWEEN: SRI MALLIKARJUN S. ADAGAL, S/O. SANGAPPA ADAGAL, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO.3/1, 8TH ‘B’ CROSS, KULUME ROAD, SHIVANAHALLI, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010. …APPELLANTDigitally signed by (BY SRI. JAGADEESH D. C., ADVOCATE) SUSHMA LAKSHMI AND: B S Location: High 1. SRI B M SUBBANNACourt of Karnataka AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO.126/18, FIRST FLOOR, (OLD SYNDICATE BANK BUILDING) 4TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU - 560 027. - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:29186 CRL.A No. 987 of 2024 HC-KAR ALSO AT S.G. RESIDENCY, 3RD CROSS, TAVAREKERE MAIN ROAD, S. G. PALYA, KAVERY LAYOUT, NEXT TO SAL DENTAL CLINIC, AND NEAR SRI. AYYAPAN TEMPLE, BANGALORE - 560 029. 2. SMT. NAGAMMA @ NAGARATHNA W/O. SRI. B. M. SUBBANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S.G. RESIDENCY, 3RD CROSS, TAVAREKERE MAIN ROAD, S.G. PALYA, KAVERY LAYOUT, NEXT TO SAI DENTAL CLINIC, AND NEAR SRI. AYYAPAN TEMPLE, BANGALORE - 560 029. …RESPONDENTS ---- THIS CRL.A FILED U/S.378(4) CR.PC. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED 24.04.2024 PASSED IN C.C.NO.20415/2014, BY THE III A.C.M.M BENGALURU CITY, ACQUAINTING THE ACCUSED FOR THE

OFFENCE P/U/S 406, 420, 120B R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29186 CRL.A No. 987 of 2024 HC-KAR ORAL 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 not advert to sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the Cr.PC.” 1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320 - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29186 CRL.A No. 987 of 2024 HC-KAR 3. On careful reading of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court supra, it is evident that the complainant, being the 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 Hon’ble Apex Court, in Celestium Financial case 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 the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court. 5. The parties shall appear before the jurisdictional Appellate Court / Sessions Court on 02.07.2026, without further notice of the concerned Court. 6. The Registry shall transmit the entire appeal papers, including the appeal memo, to the jurisdictional Sessions Court. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:29186 CRL.A No. 987 of 2024 HC-KAR 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 purposes, this appeal stands disposed of. Ordered accordingly. In view of the disposal of the appeal, pending I.A., if any, does not survive for consideration and the same is also disposed of. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

- 1 - NC: 2026:KHC:29186 CRL.A No. 987 of 2024 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 987 OF 2024 (A) BETWEEN: SRI MALLIKARJUN S. ADAGAL, S/O. SANGAPPA ADAGAL, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO.3/1, 8TH ‘B’ CROSS, KULUME ROAD, SHIVANAHALLI, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010. …APPELLANTDigitally signed by (BY SRI. JAGADEESH D. C., ADVOCATE) SUSHMA LAKSHMI AND: B S Location: High 1. SRI B M SUBBANNACourt of Karnataka AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO.126/18, FIRST FLOOR, (OLD SYNDICATE BANK BUILDING) 4TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU - 560 027. - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:29186 CRL.A No. 987 of 2024 HC-KAR ALSO AT S.G. RESIDENCY, 3RD CROSS, TAVAREKERE MAIN ROAD, S. G. PALYA, KAVERY LAYOUT, NEXT TO SAL DENTAL CLINIC, AND NEAR SRI. AYYAPAN TEMPLE, BANGALORE - 560 029. 2. SMT. NAGAMMA @ NAGARATHNA W/O. SRI. B. M. SUBBANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S.G. RESIDENCY, 3RD CROSS, TAVAREKERE MAIN ROAD, S.G. PALYA, KAVERY LAYOUT, NEXT TO SAI DENTAL CLINIC, AND NEAR SRI. AYYAPAN TEMPLE, BANGALORE - 560 029. …RESPONDENTS ---- THIS CRL.A FILED U/S.378(4) CR.PC. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED 24.04.2024 PASSED IN C.C.NO.20415/2014, BY THE III A.C.M.M BENGALURU CITY, ACQUAINTING THE ACCUSED FOR THE

OFFENCE P/U/S 406, 420, 120B R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29186 CRL.A No. 987 of 2024 HC-KAR ORAL 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 not advert to sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the Cr.PC.” 1 2025 SCC Online SC 1320 - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29186 CRL.A No. 987 of 2024 HC-KAR 3. On careful reading of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court supra, it is evident that the complainant, being the 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 Hon’ble Apex Court, in Celestium Financial case 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 the jurisdictional Appellate Court/Sessions Court. 5. The parties shall appear before the jurisdictional Appellate Court / Sessions Court on 02.07.2026, without further notice of the concerned Court. 6. The Registry shall transmit the entire appeal papers, including the appeal memo, to the jurisdictional Sessions Court. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:29186 CRL.A No. 987 of 2024 HC-KAR 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 purposes, this appeal stands disposed of. Ordered accordingly. In view of the disposal of the appeal, pending I.A., if any, does not survive for consideration and the same is also disposed of. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20