Bombay High Court

ROSHINI MATHEW PULIKKENversusNARESH ANTHONY GILL AND ANR.

Decided: 27 February 2026
Disposal: Dissmiss For Default/Non-Prosecution
Bench: GAURI GODSE

Holding

The appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. is not maintainable when the acquittal is not passed on any complaint.

Summary

The applicant filed an interim application seeking condonation of delay to file an appeal under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, challenging a magistrate's order acquitting the respondents of offences under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court examined whether the appeal was maintainable when the acquittal was not based on any complaint. It held that because the acquittal was not passed on a complaint, the provisions of Section 378(4) could not be invoked. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay and the leave to appeal were dismissed as not maintainable. The Court directed that the applicant may pursue any other appropriate legal remedies available.

Issues considered

Whether an appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. is maintainable when the magistrate's acquittal is not based on a complaint
Whether condonation of delay can be granted for a leave to appeal application in such circumstances

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 378(4)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 504, 506

Subjects

Criminal Procedure
Section 378
Condonation of Delay
Acquittal
Maintainability
IPC Section 504
IPC Section 506
Appeal

Judgment

                                                            4-IA-538-2019..docx


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Swapnil
                   CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 538 OF 2019
                                             IN
               CRIMINAL APPLICATION (PVT.) (ST.) NO. 460 OF 2019
                                  (Leave to Appeal)

          Roshini Mathew Pulikken.                      …    Applicant
                 Vs.
          Naresh Anthony Gill and Anr.                  …    Respondents


          Mr. Bijoy C. h/f. E. A. SASI for the Applicant.
          Mr. D. J. Haldankar, AGP for the State.

                                    CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

                                    DATE :         27th February 2026

          ORDER :


          1.      This application is filed for condonation of delay in filing

          the application seeking leave to file an appeal under Section

          378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”).


          2.      The application for leave to file an appeal is filed for

          seeking leave to challenge the orders passed by the learned

          magistrate,     acquitting   the    respondent    of   the   offence

          punishable under Section 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.




                                             1/2
                                             4-IA-538-2019..docx


3.   The order of acquittal is not passed on any complaint

hence, the application under Section 378 (4) is not

maintainable.


4.   The criminal interim application for condonation of

delay and the application for leave to file appeal is therefore

dismissed as not maintainable.


5.   Applicant is at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings

as permissible in law.




                                         [GAURI GODSE, J.]




                              2/2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…