Jharkhand High Court
Depesh Mani @ Dipesh Mani vs The State Of Karnataka & Ors on 29 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Acquittal Appeal (C) No. 13 of 2026
Depesh Mani @ Dipesh Mani .......... Appellant(s)
Vrs.
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ........ Respondent(s)
.......
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
For the Appellant(s) : Mrs. Rakhi Rani, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sashi Kumar Verma, A.P.P.
For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Rajen Sahay, Advocate
13/29.04.2026 I.A. No.3158 of 2026
The instant interlocutory application has been filed in terms of
Section 419(4) of the BNSS, 2023 seeking leave to appeal against the
judgment of acquittal dated 26.09.2023, passed by the learned Judicial
Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2023 arising out of
Complaint Case No. 973 of 2021.
2. Since the complainant is the victim and as such no leave to appeal
is required in the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, passed in
the case of Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal
Representatives Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in 2019
(2) SCC 752. Paragraph Nos.34, 35 & 76 of the said judgment are
relevant which are quoted herein-below: –
“34. On the third question, the Full Bench noted that if the victim
restricts the appeal to the grievance to inadequacy of the
compensation or punishment for a lesser offence, it does not become
an appeal against acquittal but the appeal is really directed against
“any other sentence or order not being an order of acquittal” within
the meaning of Article 115(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and thus,
no question of taking special leave arises. The Full Bench took the
view that for the purposes of Section 378(4) CrPC a victim who is
not a complainant will not come within the purview of that section
and would not be required to take recourse to the provision of
special leave as provided therein. It was held : (Bhavuben
Dineshbhai case, SCC OnLine Guj para 33)
“33. Therefore, in the case before us, the legislature while
conferring the right of appeal upon the victim, who is not a
complainant, not having imposed any condition of taking
leave or special leave, we cannot infer such condition and
impose the same upon the victim, although, the legislature
was quite conscious of existence of such has retained that
provision without consequential amendment thereby making
its intention clear that the provision of special leave is not
applicable to an appeal preferred by a victim against
acquittal if he is not the complainant.”
The third question was then answered in the following words: (SCC
1 Acquittal Appeal (C) No. 13 of 2026
OnLine Guj para 36
“36. … If the victim also happens to be the complainant and
the appeal is against acquittal, he is required to take leave as
provided in Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code but
if he is not the complainant, he is not required to apply for or
obtain any leave. For the appeal against inadequacy of
compensation or punishment on a lesser offence, no leave is
necessary at the instance of a victim, whether he is the
complainant or not.”
35. In our opinion, the Gujarat High Court made an artificial and
unnecessary distinction between a victim as a victim and a victim as
a complainant in respect of filing an appeal against an order of
acquittal. The proviso to Section 372 CrPC does not introduce or
incorporate any such distinction.
…
76. As far as the question of the grant of special leave is concerned,
once again we need not be overwhelmed by submissions made at the
Bar. The language of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC is quite clear,
particularly when it is contrasted with the language of Section
378(4) CrPC. The text of this provision is quite clear and it is
confined to an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon a
complaint. The word ‘complaint’ has been defined in Section 2(d)
CrPC and refers to any allegation made orally or in writing to a
Magistrate. This has nothing to do with the lodging or the
registration of an FIR, and therefore it is not at all necessary to
consider the effect of a victim being the complainant as far as the
proviso to Section 372 Cr.PC is concerned.”
3. In that view of the matter, no order is required to be passed in the
present interlocutory application.
4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 3158 of 2026 stands disposed of.
Acquittal Appeal (C) No. 13 of 2026
5. Notice upon respondent no.2 is complete as she is represented
through her counsel.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 seeks an adjournment.
7. As prayed for, put up this case after summer vacation.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
29.04.2026
A. Mohanty
Uploaded
____/____/2026
2 Acquittal Appeal (C) No. 13 of 2026
