ANISA KHANAM WIFE OF RAFIQUE AHMADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:41375
                                                                          17.REVN.154.2018.odt



                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 154 OF 2018

          Anisa Khanam wife of Rafique Ahmad                         ...Applicant

                   Versus

          The State of Maharashtra and Others                        ...Respondents

                                             ***
           Mr. Jogdand Patil Vijay B., Advocate for the Applicant.
           Mr. A.A.A. Khan, APP for Respondent – State.
           Mr. Manish P. Tripathi, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 5.
                                             ***

                                                 CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.
                                                 DATE : SEPTEMBER 07, 2026
          PER COURT :

          1.                 Heard Mr. Jogdand Patil, learned counsel for the Applicant,

          Mr. Khan, learned APP for the Respondent – State, and Mr. Tripathi,

          learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 to 5.


          2.                 The Applicant is the original complainant who has filed a

          private complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 504,

          506, 34, 323 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code before the learned

          Judicial Magistrate First Class (J.M.F.C.) at Selu, Dist. Parbhani. The

          learned JMFC, after recording the evidence and hearing the learned

          counsel for the parties, vide its judgment and order dated 07th

          October 2014, acquitted the accused persons.
          Shrikant Malani                                                         Page 1 of 4
                                                           17.REVN.154.2018.odt




3.                Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the

Applicant herein approached the learned Sessions Court by filing an

Appeal under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. The said Criminal Appeal came

to be registered as Criminal Appeal No.101 of 2014. After hearing the

learned counsel for the parties, the learned Sessions Judge, vide its

order dated 18th April 2018, was pleased to dismiss the Appeal for

want of jurisdiction. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order,

the Applicant has approached this Court under Section 397 of the

Cr.P.C.


4.                Mr. Jogdand Patil, learned counsel for the Applicant,

submits that the learned Sessions Court, while dismissing the Appeal,

has not considered the provisions of law in their proper perspective.

The learned Sessions Court, though it passed a very detailed order,

however, was pleased to dismiss the Appeal for want of jurisdiction.

The Appeal was not considered on the merits. He further submits that

since he has the right to prefer an Appeal challenging the acquittal

order under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., therefore, this matter be

remitted back to the learned Sessions Court for its fresh decision.


5.                Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for Respondent


Shrikant Malani                                                    Page 2 of 4
                                                             17.REVN.154.2018.odt



Nos.2 to 5, however, opposed the submissions of the learned counsel

for the Applicant. According to him, the judgment was delivered in the

year 2018 and since then this matter has been pending before this

Court. It is therefore submitted that the instant Criminal Revision

Application be decided on its own merits.


6.                After going through the order passed by the learned

Sessions Court, it appears that the learned Sessions Court, in its

judgment, was pleased to observe that the Applicant has an

appropriate remedy of approaching the High Court under Section

378(4) of the Cr.P.C. for filing an Appeal against the acquittal.

According to the learned Sessions Court, the Appeal against the

acquittal under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. is not maintainable;

therefore, for want of jurisdiction, the Appeal came to be dismissed.

After going through the order, I find that the aforesaid order is not

sustainable in the eyes of law. As per Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., a right

of Appeal is provided to the victim for challenging the order of

acquittal.


7.                In that view of the matter, the order needs to be quashed

and set aside by remanding the matter afresh to the Appellate Court.

Hence, the Criminal Revision Application is allowed. The order dated

Shrikant Malani                                                      Page 3 of 4
                                                                 17.REVN.154.2018.odt



18th April 2018, passed by the learned Sessions Court, is hereby

quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned

Sessions Court with a direction to decide the Appeal afresh within a

period of six months from today.


8.                The   Criminal   Revision   Application   is    disposed        of

accordingly.


9.                It is made clear that this Court has not made any findings

on the merits of the matter. The learned Appellate Court is free to

decide the Appeal on its own merits.




                                              ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )




Shrikant Malani                                                          Page 4 of 4