- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4734 CRL.RP No. 957 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 994 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 957 OF 2022 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 994 OF 2022 IN CRL.RP No. 957/2022: BETWEEN: 1. H.N.NAVEEN KUMAR S/O NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O CHANNAKESHAVANAGAR SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVMOGGA DISTRICT-577 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. USHADEVI W/O V. SRIDHAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS PROP: PRIYADARSHINI BAR AND RESTAURANT M.S.ROAD, SHIKARIPURA SHIVMOGGA DISTRICT-577 201. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VARDHAMAN V. GUNJAL, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.01.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT SHIVAMOGGA IN CRL.A.NO.50/2018 AND JUDGMENT DATED 04.06.2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4734 CRL.RP No. 957 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 994 of 2022 JUDGE AND JMFC AT SHIKARIPURA IN C.C.NO.9/2017 (OLD C.C.NO.485/2016) AND THE PETITIONER TO BE ACQUITTED FOR THE OFFENCE ALLEGED AGAINST HIM. IN CRL.RP NO. 994/2022: BETWEEN: 1. H.N.NAVEEN KUMAR S/O NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O CHANNAKESHAVANAGAR SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 201. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. USHADEVI W/O V. SRIDHAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS PROP: PRIYADARSHINI BAR AND RESTAURANT M.S.ROAD, SHIKARIPURA SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 201. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VARDHAMAN V. GUNJAL, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.01.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT SHIVAMOGGA IN CRL.A.NO.49/2018 AND JUDGMENT DATED 04.06.2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT SHIKARIPURA IN C.C.NO.12/2017 (OLD C.C.NO.502/2016) AND THE PETITIONER TO BE ACQUITTED FOR THE OFFENCE ALLEGED AGAINST HIM. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4734 CRL.RP No. 957 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 994 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent on I.A.No.1/2022 in both the matters. 2. There is a delay of 1175 days in Crl.R.P.No.957/2022 and delay of 1180 day in Crl.R.P.No.994/2022. In support of these applications the affidavits are filed in both the revision petitions and reasons assigned in the respective affidavits that he came to know about the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court recently and unable to meet advocate due to reason that he was suffering from jaundice and he was taking the treatment and taking rest as advised by Doctor and in the meanwhile due to Covid-19, he was unable to meet his advocate in the Trial Court and High Court and hence delay may be condoned. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4734 CRL.RP No. 957 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 994 of 2022 3. Having considered the grounds urged in the applications and affidavits, having perused the order passed by the First Appellate Court that is in the month of January-2018 and there was no any covid-19 in the month January-2018 and only covid-19 affected in the month of March-2020. Though he has stated that he was suffering from jaundice, nothing is placed on record. Apart from that this petition is filed in the year 2022 and after covid-19 also no sufficient reasons are given except stating that he could not contact the advocate of the Trial Court as well as High Court. There is no any proper explanation for delay is concerned. Having considered the fact that the Cheque bounce case was filed in the year 2017, that is 8 years ago and case was also disposed of in the year 2018 and immediately though filed appeal before the First Appellate Court in the year 2018 itself and case was disposed of in the year January-2019 itself, no steps are taken. There is an inordinate delay which has not been explained properly and I do not find any grounds to condone the delay in both the revision petitions. Hence, I.A.No.1/2022 in respective - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4734 CRL.RP No. 957 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 994 of 2022 revision petitions are rejected. Consequently, both the revision petitions are dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19