Bombay High Court
SANDHYA DINESH MANERKAR, REPRESENTED BY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY DINESH MATHAversusM/S WELWORTH DEVELOPERS, REP. BY ITS PARTNERS AND 3 ORS.
- Disposal
- Disposed of
Holding
A victim has a statutory right of appeal against an order of acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC and cannot seek revision; the remedy is to prefer an appeal before the Sessions Court.
Summary
Multiple criminal miscellaneous applications were filed in several criminal appeals by various appellants against Welworth Developers. The appellants sought relief against orders of acquittal, arguing for revision. The Court examined Supreme Court judgments (Everest Automobiles v. Raji Enterprises, Joseph Stephen & Others v. Santhanasamy & Others, and Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka) which clarified that, post‑2009 amendment, a victim has a statutory right of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC and cannot resort to revision. Consequently, the Court held that the appropriate remedy is an appeal before the Sessions Court, not a revision. The applications were therefore disposed of, with liberty granted to the appellants to file an appeal within four weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether a victim or complainant can file a revision against an order of acquittal under Section 372 CrPC or Section 378(4).
- Whether the victim must prefer an appeal before the Sessions Court instead of seeking revision.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 372, 378
Subjects
- victim's right of appeal
- Section 372 CrPC
- revision vs appeal
- criminal procedure
- order of acquittal
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
2026:BHC-GOA:1739
10-crma52-2024 & ors
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)
Page 1 of 6
27th August, 2026
10-crma52-2024 & ors
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 ... Applicant
MATHA /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 …Applicant
MATHA /Appellant.
Versus
M/S. WELWORTH DEVELOPERS REP. BY ... Respondents.
ITS PARTNERS AND 3 ORS.
AND
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.67 OF
2024
Page 2 of 6
27th August, 2026
10-crma52-2024 & ors
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 ... Applicant
MATHA /Appellant.
Versus
M/S. WELWORTH DEVELOPERS REP. BY ... Respondents.
ITS PARTNERS AND 3 ORS.
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 ... Applicant
MATHA /Appellant.
Versus
M/S. WELWORTH DEVELOPERS REP. BY ... Respondents.
ITS PARTNERS AND 3 ORS.
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
Page 3 of 6
27th August, 2026
10-crma52-2024 & ors
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
Page 4 of 6
27th August, 2026
10-crma52-2024 & ors
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.
Page 5 of 6
27th August, 2026
10-crma52-2024 & ors
3. The Applications stand disposed of.
S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
Page 6 of 6
Signed by: MARIA SUZANA REBELLO
27th August, 2026
Designation: Personal Assistant
Date: 28/08/2026 14:09:06
Checking your session…