Master Navin vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 12515 Kant

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

                            BEFORE

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

    CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 1077 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

Master Navin,
S/o Mahendra,
Aged about 17 years,
Present age is 19 years,
Residing at Bangi Colony,
1st Cross, Cottonpet,
Bengaluru- 560053.
(Represented by his mother)
                                                   .. Petitioner

 ( By Sri. Shivashankaraiah M.R., Advocate )

AND:

State of Karnataka,
Cottonpet Police,
Bengaluru City,
Represented by
State Public Prosecutor.

                                                .. Respondent

      This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 397
read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records and
set aside the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Juvenile Justice
Board, Bengaluru Urban District in J.C No.237/2017 dated
14.02.2020 and order passed by the L Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Crl.A.No.334/2020 dated
15.07.2021 and Pass such other order that this Hon'ble Court
deems fit in the above case in the interest of justice and equity.
                                            Crl.R.P.No.1077/2021
                              2



      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.

2. In spite of granting several and sufficient

opportunities, of not less than six times, the petitioner has

not complied the office objections.

3. On 25.03.2022, while the time was being

granted for fourth time, this Court had imposed a cost of

`500/- payable at the Registry, thereafter also the office

objections were not complied with. However, two more

adjournments were granted to the petitioner without

imposing any further cost.

4. In spite of the same, the petitioner neither

complied the office objections nor shown any reasons for

non-compliance of office objections. The matter is still at

the stage of compliance of office objections, as such, not Crl.R.P.No.1077/2021

yet ripen for first hearing. Hence, the petition stands

dismissed for non-compliance of office objections and for

non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SKS