Madegowda vs C.Ashwathanarayana
2022 Latest Caselaw 12622 Kant

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

                            BEFORE

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

     CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 466 OF 2021

BETWEEN:
Madegowda,
S/o Marappa,
Aged about 56 years,
Residing at Binnamangala
Village, Kasaba Hobli,
Devanahalli Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District,
Pin Code-562110.
                                                .. Petitioner
 ( By Sri. Chikkanna, Advocate )

AND:
C. Ashwathanarayana,
S/o Late. Chikkappaiah,
Aged about 62 years,
Residing at No.639,
Sulibele Main Road,
Devanahalli Town,
Bengaluru Rural District,
Pin Code-562110.
                                              .. Respondent

       This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397(1) read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the
Lower Court records in Crl.Appeal No.15009/2019, V Additional
District Judge at Devanahalli and set aside the impugned
judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge in the V
Additional District Judge at Devanahalli in Crl.Appeal
No.15009/2019 dated 01.06.2020 confirming the judgment
passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli in
                                              Crl.R.P.No.466/2021
                              2


C.C.No.6/2013 dated 15.05.2019 and acquit the petitioner in
the above case, in the interest of justice.

      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 in this matter either physically or

through video conference.

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, even as finally also, the petitioner has

neither complied the office objections nor shown any

reason for non-compliance and not even appearing in this

matter either physically or through video conference.

Hence, it can be inferred that the petitioner is not inclined

to prosecute the matter. Accordingly, the petition stands

dismissed for non-compliance of office objections and for

non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SKS