Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 31841 (KAR)

SRI. G VENKATESH v. SMT. ASHWATHAMMA

CRL.RP/1444/2021 · 2025-02-17

H P Sandesh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7013 CRL.RP No. 1444 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1444 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. G. VENKATESH, S/O LATE B.O. GURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT LAKKAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, TARIKERE TALUK, LAKKAVANAHALLI HOBLI, TARIKERE-577128. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRA KUMAR R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. ASHWATHAMMA, W/O V. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.1043, 8TH CROSS, VIJAYANANDHA NAGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560096. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SAMPATH BAPT, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 16.09.2021 ONE PASSED BY THE HON’BLE LXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.571/2020 WHICH FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A WHICH CONFIRM THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 29.01.2020 ONE PASSED BY THE HON’BLE Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7013 CRL.RP No. 1444 of 2021 XIX ACMM, AT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.20283/2012 WHICH IS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-B, AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This Court vide order dated 03.02.2025, taken note of though this petition is of the year 2021, till date office objections are not complied. However, in the ends of justice another two weeks time was granted to comply with the office objections on payment of cost of Rs.500/- payable at the Registry. It was also made clear that if the cost is not paid and office objections are not complied within two weeks, list the matter for dismissal. 2. Inspite of the said order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not paid the cost and not complied with the office objections. Hence, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD