Wife Challenging Husband’s Acquittal Needs No Leave To Appeal In Police-Report Case, Madras HC Says

Sharmila, the victim (PW1) in a prosecution instituted on a police report, sought to challenge the acquittal of the second respondent, who had been tried for offences under Sections 326/307, 498A and 506(ii) IPC.

The Sessions Court acquitted him on 24 July 2026.

Sharmila filed an appeal and a petition under Section 419(4) BNSS seeking special leave to appeal.

The petition arose because a prior single-judge order had stated that an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC required leave, prompting the Registry to insist on a leave petition even in police-report cases.

The proviso to Section 372 CrPC gives a victim a statutory right to appeal against an acquittal to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies; unlike Section 378(4) CrPC, it does not require leave or special leave.

Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy confirms that a victim’s appeal under the proviso is an absolute statutory right and distinguishes it from a complainant’s appeal under Section 378(4), which requires special leave.

The Court also relied on Asian Paints Ltd. v. Ram Babu for the principle that the victim’s right of appeal under Section 372 is not restricted by another provision of the CrPC.

The Court noted that Subash Chand concerned the statutory route for appeals by the District Magistrate and did not decide whether a victim needed leave; Satya Pal Singh had addressed leave, but the Court considered the later Supreme Court authorities to establish the governing rule for the issue before it.

This was a police-report case, so the Court treated Sharmila as a victim exercising the right conferred by the proviso to Section 372, rather than as a complainant seeking to appeal under Section 378(4).

Reading Mallikarjun Kodagali, Joseph Stephen and Asian Paints together, the Court held that the victim’s statutory appeal requires no leave.

It therefore found the prior single-judge observations inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s governing decisions and held that they could not justify the Registry’s requirement for a leave petition.

The Court expressly left open the separate question concerning appeals in cases instituted on a complaint.

It directed the Registry not to insist on a leave petition for such an appeal.

Sharmila’s petition seeking leave was therefore closed as redundant, and the Registry was directed to number the appeal and list it for hearing in the usual course.