Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 28072 Kant
Judgement Date : 23 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:47993
CRL.RP No. 960 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 960 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
AMABARISH,
S/O A/LOKESH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/O VINYASA,
TENGINA THOTA, KADRI,
MANGALORE - 575 004.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R B DESHPANDE.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DR. SRINATH PRABHU,
S/O LATE RAGHUNATH PRABHU,
MAJOR,
R/O UJIRE,
Digitally
signed by BELTHANGADY TALUKA,
MALATESH DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 240.
KC
Location: DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
HIGH
COURT OF 1(A) AMRITHA S PRABHU,
KARNATAKA W/O LATE. SHREENATH R PRABHU U,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.8-48/1,
"SHREEKRIPA", UJIRE
BELTANAGDI,
DAKSHINA KANNADA,
BENGALURU - 574 240.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:47993
CRL.RP No. 960 of 2015
1(B) KEDAR JANADHARAN PRABHU,
S/O. LATE SHREENATHA R PRABHU U,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.8-48/1,
"SHREEKRIPA", UJIRE
BELTANAGDI,
DAKSHINA KANNADA,
BENGALURU - 574 240.
2. SMT. SHALINI R PRABHU,
W/O LATE RANGANATH PRABHU,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/O UJIRE,
BELTHANGADY TALUKA,
DAKSHINA KANNDA DISTRICT - 574 240.
(V/O/D 16.02.2016 CAUSE TITILE IS
AMENDED AND R1 HEREIN IS THE LEGAL
HEIR OF DEAD RESPONDENT NO.2)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NIKHIL D KAMATH., FOR R1 (A AND B);
R1 AND R2 ARE DEAD)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 AND 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
29.7.2015 PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J., D.K., MANGALURU IN
CRL.A.NO.207/2013 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 4.4.2013 PASSED BY THE
J.M.F.C.-V COURT, MANGALORE, D.K. IN C.C.NO.543/2006
AND ACQUIT THE PETR. OF CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
A memo is filed on 23.11.2024 by learned counsel for
the revision petitioner. The memo reads as under:
NC: 2024:KHC:47993
"Petitioner is reported to be dead as per instructions by the counter part. Hence this memo."
2. In view of the memo, revision petition is
dismissed as abated.
3. However, if the information provided by the
revision petitioner is incorrect, the complainant is at liberty
to revive the revision petition.
4. Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be
withdrawn by the complainant under due identification.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE
AMA
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!