Smt. Sunitha. P. B vs Sri. K. P. Umesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 11902 Kant

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

                           BEFORE

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

       CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.931 OF 2021


BETWEEN:

SMT. SUNITHA P.B.
W/O SRI. BALACHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/O PURADAMANE, HATHUR,
N.R.PURA TALUK - 577 127
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.
                                                 ... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. BHANU PRABHU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. K.P.UMESH
S/O PRABHAKAR SHET,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
BUSINESSMAN AND AGRICULTURIST,
R/AT MAIN TOWN
KOPPA TOWN AND TALUK
PIN - 577 126
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.
                                                ... RESPONDENT

       THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S.397(1) R/W
401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE
HONOURABLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT N.R.PURA, DATED
22.08.2019    IN    C.C.NO.58/2018    (C.C.No.566/2008)   AND
CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER
PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
                                                           Crl.R.P.No.931/2021
                                       2


JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.198/2019
DATED        02.09.2020    BY   ALLOWING     THIS   CRIMINAL    REVISION
PETITION AND ETC.,


        THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, 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 of learned counsel for the petitioner in the

matter.

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

that in this petition of the year 2021 as long back on

26.08.2021 itself, issuance of notice to the respondent was

ordered. However, till date the petitioner has not taken steps

to ensure service of notice to the respondent.

3. On 08.07.2022 though the learned counsel for the

petitioner had undertaken to pay process fee, furnish copy of

the petition during the course of the day, but, according to

registry, needful is not done. Hence, it can be inferred that the Crl.R.P.No.931/2021

petitioner is not interested either in prosecuting the matter or

ensuring service of notice on the respondent.

Hence, the petition stands dismissed for not taking

steps as well as for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

TL