Sri B N Venkatesh vs Sri Rahul R Moorthy
2022 Latest Caselaw 9148 Kant

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

                       BEFORE

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

    CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.482 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

SRI B N VENKATESH
S/O SRI K H NAGENDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT NO.67, 1ST MAIN,
BSK III STAGE, VIVEKANANDANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 085.                    ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PRABHAKARAIAH N V, ADVOCATE)


AND:

SRI RAHUL R MOORTHY
S/O SRI RAMAMURTHY
AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT NO 104,
CARVED OUT OF SY NO 61/1A2,
BEHIND GUTTE ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE,
KODILPALYA, KENGERI,
BENGALURU - 560060.                     ... RESPONDENT


     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S.397
R/W 401 CR.P.C WITH THE FOLLOWING PRAYERS:

       'A) CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS IN CRIMINAL APPEAL
 NO.1604/2017 PASSED BY THE IN THE COURT OF LXI ADDL.
 CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, BENGALURU DATED
 15.02.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND CALL FOR ENTIRE
 RECORDS IN C.C.NO.25265/2016 PASSED BY THE XXI
                                                 Crl.R.P.No.482/2021
                                2


 ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTATE, BENGALURU
 DATED 11.08.2017 AS PER ANNEXURE-B.

       B) TO PASS AN ORDER BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
 JUDGMENT/ORDER DATED 15.02.2019 PASSED IN THE COURT
 OF LXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE,
 BENGALURU IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1604/2017 AND ORDER
 DATED 11.08.2017 PASSED BY THE XXI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
 METROPOLITAN         MAGISTRATE,      BENGALURU      IN
 C.C.NO.25265/2016 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND B BY ALLOWING
 THIS CRL.RP FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

      C)    TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S INCLUDING THE
 COST TO THE PETITIONER AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT
 TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE'.


    THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                            ORDER

None appear either personally or through video

conference. No reasons are forthcoming either for

non-compliance of office objections or for non-appearance

of learned counsel for the petitioner.

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

that the petition is of the year 2021. Several and sufficient

opportunities have been granted to comply office

objections. On 01.04.2022, imposing cost of `500/-

payable by the petitioner, one more week time was Crl.R.P.No.482/2021

granted. In spite of the same, the petitioner has neither

paid the cost nor complied the office objections or nor

even shown any reasons for non-compliance of the office

objections. Hence, the petition is dismissed for non-

prosecution and also for non-compliance of office

objections.

Registry to recover the cost imposed on 01.04.2022,

from the petitioner, as arrears of land revenue and in

accordance with law.

Sd/-

JUDGE

TL