SMT. JAYASHREE R. URS v. SRI. H. S. NAGESH PREETHAM
CRL.A/781/2022 · 2026-09-09
S Rachaiah
Criminal Appealbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 2556 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 2556 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29083 CRL.A No. 781 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 781 OF 2022 (A)
BETWEEN:
SMT. JAYASHREE R. URS D/O. LATE M.P.R. URS AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO. 1-A, 8TH MAIN SJH ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURAM MYSORE
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GANESHA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI. H. S. NAGESH PREETHAM S/O. LATE H. S. SHANKARALINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS NO.85, NAGALAKSHMI SHANKARALAYA SAHUKAR CHENNAIAH ROAD 4TH STAGE, T. K. LAYOUT KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSORE-560 009
2.
SMT. CHANDRA URS WIFE OF LATE M.P.R. URS AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS NO.1B, UPSTAIRS, 8TH MAIN
Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29083 CRL.A No. 781 of 2022
SJH ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURAM MYSORE-560 009
3.
SMT. R. KANCHANAGANGA D/O. LATE M.P.R. URS AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING ALSO AT NO.1B, UPSTAIRS 8TH MAIN, SJH ROAD VIDYARANYAPURAM MYSORE-560 009
4.
SMT. ARUNDHATHI R. URS W/O. RAKESH J. RAO AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/ALSO AT NO. 1B, UPSTARIS, 8TH MAIN SJH ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURAM MYSORE-560 009
…RESPONDENTS
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRL.A BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 02.02.2022, PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, MYSORE IN C.C.NO.1441/2021.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29083 CRL.A No. 781 of 2022
ORAL JUDGMENT Case called out. The matter is listed for non-compliance of office objections for fourth time. However, learned counsel for appellant has failed to comply with the office objections despite giving sufficient opportunities. Therefore, it appears that he is not interested to proceed with the case. Hence, it is appropriate to dismiss the appeal for non-compliance of office objections.
2. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed for non- prosecution.
Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE
JS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7