N Sunitha vs Sagar M K
2022 Latest Caselaw 4035 Kant

                               1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                            BEFORE

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

          CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.550/2019

BETWEEN:

1.     N. SUNITHA,
       W/O SAGAR M.K.,
       AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
       #546, 16TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN,
       VISWAPRIYALAYOUT,
       BEGUR, BANGALORE-68.

2.     HARJETHA,
       S/O SAGAR M.K.,
       AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS,
       MINOR GUARDIAN REP BY HIS MOTHER.
       #546, 16TH CROS S, 3RD MAIN,
       VISWAPRIYALAYOUT,
       BEGUR, BANGALORE-68.                 ...PETITIONERS

 (BY SRI MANJUNATHA PATTANA SHETTY, ADVOCATE - ABSENT)

AND:

SAGAR M.K.,
S/O ANANTHA RAM SING,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
OWNER OF S.S. ENTERPRISES,
"GANGA NILAYA" #32/2, 6TH CROSS,
CHOLURPALYA, MAGADI ROAD,
BANGAlORE-560023.                           ...RESPONDENT

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTIONS 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO MODIFY
THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AT BANGALORE,
                                    2



DATED 11.02.2019 IN CRL.A.NO.42/2017 BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION FROM RS.2,00,000/- TO 8,00,000/-.

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

                                 ORDER

Though this petition was filed on 16.04.2019, the learned

counsel for the petitioners never appeared before the Court even

though the matter was listed on 06.03.2020 and 09.03.2021.

Only on 20.04.2021, the learned counsel for the petitioners

appeared through video conference and took time. On

25.05.2021 and 02.06.2021 also the learned counsel for the

petitioners was absent. On 08.07.2021, the learned counsel

appeared through video conference and sought time and three

weeks time was granted. On 28.09.2021, the matter was

adjourned at the request of the learned counsel for the

petitioners. On 07.10.2021, both the learned counsel were

absent. On 29.11.2021, again the learned counsel for the

petitioners sought time. Subsequently, the learned counsel for

the petitioners was absent on 06.01.2022 and 10.02.2022.

2. Today also when the matter is called twice in the

morning session as well as in the afternoon session, there is no

representation on behalf of the petitioners. Hence, it is clear

that the learned counsel for the petitioners is not interested in

pursuing the matter and this petition is not admitted. Hence,

the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MD