Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23849 (KAR)

MRS LOHINI P v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

CRL.P/5129/2022 · 2025-07-10

J M Khazi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25343 CRL.P No. 5129 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5129 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. MRS LOHINI P W/O MR DEEPAK T R D/O LATE T PRANESH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 2. MRS HEMAVATHY M W/O LATE T PRANESH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 3. MR PRAVAGNA S/O LATE T PRANESH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS ALL ARE R/O NO.319, 6TH CROSS JANATHA COLONY, KASAGHATTAPURA HESARAGHATTA BENGALURU-560066 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PARAMESWARAPPA C, ADVOCATE-ABSENT) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SOLADEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION BENGALURU CITY Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25343 CRL.P No. 5129 of 2022 BENGALURU-560107 REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU-560001 2. MR DEEPAK T R S/O LATE RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/A NO.112, 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT NEAR MICO LAYOUT, BEGUR MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560068 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.16544/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU BASED ON THE CR.NO.68/2021 OF THE SOLADEVANAHALLI P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 341,323,504,506 R/W 34 OF IPC, 1860 BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER No representation for petitioners. No representation for petitioners even in the afternoon session. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25343 CRL.P No. 5129 of 2022 This matter is of the year 2022. Vide order dated 01.07.2025, a conditional order was passed to the effect that if steps is not taken in respect of respondent No.2, necessary orders would be passed for dismissal of the petition. Despite the same, needful has not been done. It appears petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the petition. Hence, petition is dismissed for default. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3