Sri R Prakash vs Yelahanka Merchants Finance ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2650 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2021

                               BEFORE

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

  CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1194 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

Sri R.Prakash,
S/o Late Ramaiah,
Aged about 44 years,
Residing at No.D-80,
8th Cross, Prakruthi Layout,
Mandli Nagar, Yelahanka,
Bangalore-560 064.                             .. Petitioner

 ( By Smt. Rupa B.P., Advocate )

AND:

Yelahanka Merchants Finance
Company,
Hemkumar Nagar,
Bypass Road, DB Road,
Bangalore-560 064.                             .. Respondent

       This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397
read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. praying to call for records in
Crl.Appeal No.25127/2017, Principal City Civil and Sessions
Judge, (Annexure-A) and judgment in CC.No.5815/2014, dated
14.08.2017, on the file of V Addl.Small Causes Judge and 24th
ACMM, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore and allow the above criminal
revision petition by quashing/setting aside the orders dated
03.05.2018 in Crl.Appeal No.25127/2017 as Annexure-A and
Judgment and sentence imposed in CC.No.5815/2014, on the
file of V Addl.Small Causes Judge and 24th ACMM, Mayo Hall
Unit, Bangalore, Annexure-B.
                                                Crl.R.P.No.1194/2019
                                2


      This Criminal Revision Petition is coming on for Orders
through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing, this day
the Court made the following:

                             ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner is neither present

physically nor through Video Conference. No reasons are

forthcoming for her non-appearance.

2. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that in

this petition of the year 2019, in spite of granting several and

sufficient opportunities of not less than seven times, the

petitioner has not complied the office objections. Several and

sufficient opportunities, even as finally, as a last chance, again

as a last chance, as an ultimate chance and again as a last

chance were all given to the petitioner to comply the office

objections, in spite of which, the office objections are not

complied with.

3. A perusal of the office objections would go to show that

the objections are simple in nature and were easy to comply

since they include the objections like non-mentioning of the

correct provision of law in the memorandum of petition,

correction in the cause title of the respondent, non-mentioning Crl.R.P.No.1194/2019

of correct provision of law in IA.No.2/2019 etc., Even to

comply those office objections, which are very simple in nature,

despite granting several and sufficient opportunities as

observed above, the petitioner has not evinced any interest in

complying the office objections. He has also not evinced any

interest in prosecuting the matter and he has remained absent

without showing any reasons when the case is called.

4. Needless to say that, the restrictions imposed during

Carona Pandemic have been liberalised enormously and even

physical appearance of the learned counsels in the matter is

also permitted. The compliance of office objections has been

permitted, however, subject to guidelines given in the Standard

Operating Procedure, even during the period of COVID-19

(Carona Pandemic restrictions). I do not find any reason for

non-compliance of office objections. As such, for no valid

reasons, the office objections are not complied with, Thus, it

shows that the petitioner is not evincing any interest in

prosecuting the matter and in complying the office objections.

Crl.R.P.No.1194/2019

Accordingly, the Petition stands dismissed for

non-prosecution and also for non-compliance of office

objections.

Sd/-

JUDGE

bk/