M K Dharma Prakash vs Sri S Rathnakar
2022 Latest Caselaw 7543 Kant

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2022

                            BEFORE

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

       CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.174 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

M.K.Dharma Prakash,
Aged about 37 years,
Business, Gupta MNK No.5,
Vijayarangam Layout,
1st Main Road,
Jayanagar, B.B.M.P.,
Bengalore-560 004.                             .. Petitioner

 ( By Sri Prem Kumar B., Advocate )

AND:

Sri S.Rathnakar,
S/o Late Shanmugam,
Aged about 36 years,
Business,
R/o No.44/A,
Marenahalli Village,
22nd Main, JP Nagar,2nd Phase,
Bangalore.                                   .. Respondent

       This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 401
of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the impugned judgment dated
11.07.2017, passed in C.C.No.23518/2016, passed by the 22nd
Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore and same is
confirmed by the Hon'ble District and Session Court in
Cr.A.No.1133/2017, passed on 19.10.2019 or otherwise
remand the matter a fresh consideration of evidence of PW-1 in
the light of the submission or averments which are made out in
                                                               Crl.R.P.No.174/2020
                                       2


the memorandum of appeal, in the interest of justice and
equity.

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

                                    ORDER

None appear for the petitioner either physically or through

Video Conference. No reasons are forthcoming for

non-appearance or for non-compliance of office objections.

2. On 21.02.2022, this Court had made the following

observations :

" None appears for the revision petitioner either physically or through video conference. No reasons are forthcoming for non-appearance of learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well for non-compliance of office objections.

A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that sufficient time has already been granted to comply the office objections. Inspite of the same, since the revision petitioner has not complied the office objections, considering the nature of the petition, though as a final opportunity, a week's time can be granted, however the same would be on cost. Accordingly, imposing a cost of `500/- payable by the revision petitioner to the Legal Services Committee of this Court within three days from today and filing a compliance memo along with receipt in the Registry within the said period, as a final Crl.R.P.No.174/2020

opportunity, a week's time is granted to comply the office objections."

In spite of the above, since the petitioner has neither

complied the office objections nor paid the cost and nor even

shown any reason for non-compliance of office objections, the

Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed for

non-prosecution, as well for non-compliance of office

objections.

Sd/-

JUDGE

bk/