Sri. Vijay vs Smt. Sarala
2023 Latest Caselaw 164 Kant

                                        -1-
                                               CRL.RP No. 109 of 2018




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                    DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                                     BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
                 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 109 OF 2018


             BETWEEN:

             SRI. VIJAY
             S/O LATE K.S CHANDRASHEKAR
             AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
             R/AT NO.665, 15TH MAIN,
             6TH CROSS, SRINIVASANAGAR
             BANK COLONY
             BANGALORE-560050.

                                                        ...PETITIONER

             (BY SRI. THEJARAJU A.,ADVOCATE)

             AND:

             SMT. SARALA
             W/O LATE MUKUNDA SHETTY
             AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
             R/AT FLAT NO.2, NO.60,
Digitally    GAYATHRI APARTMENT,
signed by
SUMA         3RD CROSS, 4TH MAIN,
Location:    KIRLOSKAR COLONY
HIGH COURT   BANGALORE-560078.
OF
KARNATAKA
                                                      ...RESPONDENT

             (BY SRI. S.A. SAMI, ADVOCATE)
                                   -2-
                                           CRL.RP No. 109 of 2018




     THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
18.03.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XVI A.C.M.M,
BANGALORE, IN C.C.NO.5614/2011, AND ALSO KINDLY SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.10.2017 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED LII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
AT BANGALORE CITY (CCH-53) IN CRL.APPEAL NO.472/2016,
AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED AND ETC.,

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                             ORDER

This Court in terms of the order dated 02.02.2018 had

ordered the release of the petitioner on bail subject to

conditions. Thereafter, there was no representation by the

petitioner on 04.07.2018 and 05.10.2018. Later, as the office

objections were not complied, this Court granted two weeks

time to comply the office objections on 13.03.2019. However,

there was no compliance of the office objections and the case

was listed on 26.07.2019. On that day there was no

representation for the petitioner. Later, an application was filed

for extension of time for compliance of the order dated

02.02.2018. This application was rejected by this Court in

terms of the order dated 13.08.2019. From then on, there is no

representation for the petitioner.

CRL.RP No. 109 of 2018

2. Hence, this Court granted liberty to execute the

order of sentence passed by the trial Court in terms of the

order dated 06.03.2021. From that day, there is no

representation for the petitioner. When the revision petition is

listed today for admission, there is no representation for the

petitioner.

Hence, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PK