Smt. Indu K Swamy vs Sri P Ram Rathan Hegde
2022 Latest Caselaw 12399 Kant

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

                             BEFORE

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

       CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.228 OF 2021


BETWEEN:

Smt. Indu K.Swamy,
Aged about 60 years,
Residing at "Ramky Utsav",
No.B-202, Seenappa Layout,
R.M.V. 2nd stage,
BEL 2nd stage, BEL road,
Bangalore- 560 094.

Now at "Parvathi Enclave"
4th cross, 3rd Main, AMS layout,
Vidyaranyapura,
Bangalore- 560097.
                                                .. Petitioner
 ( By Sri Rudra Murthy G.T., Advocate )

AND:

Sri. P. Ram Rathan Hegde,
Aged about 61 years,
S/o Late Chandrashekar Hegde,
Residing at No.392, 13th Cross,
Sadashivanagar,
Bangalore- 560080.
                                                 .. Respondent

       This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 397
read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment
                                               Crl.R.P.No.228/2021
                                2


and order dated conviction dated 16.01.2020 passed by the
LXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH-68)
Bangalore, in Crl.A.No.1652/2017 confirming the judgment and
order dated 07.11.2017 passed by the XX ACMM at Bangalore
in CC No.15807/2013 convicting the petitioner for the offences
under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C and acquit the petitioner of all
charges.


     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 conferencing.

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

in spite of granting several and sufficient opportunities of

not less than four times, the petitioner has not complied

the office objection. Even after granting time as finally,

one more adjournment was granted, even in the absence

of the learned counsel for the petitioner to enable him to

comply the office objection. In spite of the same, the

petitioner has neither complied office objections nor shown Crl.R.P.No.228/2021

any reason for non-compliance of office objection. Hence,

the petition stands dismissed for non-compliance of office

objection as well as for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SKS