The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right of appeal given to the victim under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not automatically admit the appeal for final hearing and does not place the appeal at a higher pedestal compared to other appeals against acquittal.

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. Judgment on preliminary point.

2. On 29.06.2015, this Court has passed the following order in these appeals:

“Heard the respective counsel appearing for the appellant and respondents in both the appeals. The respective counsel appearing for the appellant – complainant submit that as requirement of obtaining leave is deleted in the wake of right given to the complainant under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appeals must be directly admitted and placed for final hearing. According to them, there is no question of hearing the appeal again for admission as parameters to be applied for grant of leave to appeal and for admission, are same. The respective counsel appearing for the respondents urged that law on the point is well settled and deleting the requirement of leave does not tantamount to grant of admission of appeal for its final hearing.

We have heard respective counsel only on this question and the Appeals are closed for passing orders on it.”

Accordingly, we decide the question, whether the Appeal filed by the victim under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal procedure stands admitted for final hearing as a matter of course or then it is subjected to provisions of Section 384 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, can be summarily dismissed.

3. In Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2015, this Court has on 05.05.2015 while delivering a judgment, has considered this issue. In para 7 thereof, the said Division Bench has looked into the conclusions of learned Single Judge, when on account of difference between judges comprising the Division Bench, the matter was placed before the Hon'ble third judge of this Court. The said Division Bench judgment in the case of Balasaheb Rangnath Khade vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., is reported at 2012 ALL MR (Cri) 1153, while judgment of learned Single Judge is reported in the case of Balasaheb Rangnath Khade vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., at 2012 (3) Mh. L.J. (Cri.) 99. One of us, P.N. Deshmukh, J., is a party to the judgment dated 05.05.2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2015. There, after reproducing in para 8, the findings recorded in para 66 of Single Judge's judgment (supra), the Division Bench has found that question whether such an appeal of victim can be summarily dismissed or not, was not open before the learned Single Judge. In para 10, finding that requirement of obtaining leave and power of High Court to dismiss appeal summarily, is not one and the same, is also recorded. The discussion in this respect is contained in para 11 of the judgment dated 05.05.2015. The Division Bench on 05.05.2015 has held that High Court has got power to summarily dismiss the victim's appeal against the acquittal.

4. Shri Manohar, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that as there is no question of obtaining leave of this Court by victim while filing appeal under Section 372 of Cr. P.C., the appeal must be deemed to have admitted for final hearing. He is relying upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Dongarsingh vs. Krishan Kant Vyas & Anr., reported at AIR 1957 Madhya Pradesh 162, to urge that scope of hearing, while considering the question of grant of leave and while admitting such appeal, is identical and hence in case leave is granted, the appeal against the acquittal automatically stands admitted. He has taken us through paragraphs 15 to 18 of the observations of the Madhya Pradesh judgment. He points out that if leave is granted, judgment of acquittal is likely to be reversed. The support is also taken from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Giriraj Dubey, reported at 2013 CRI. L.J. 1676. There, the Hon'ble Apex Court has in paragraphs 4 & 5 pointed out the obligation of High Court to give reasons while dismissing the application for grant of leave. In paragraph 12, the Hon'ble Apex Court has pointed out that a crime generally creates dist