- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39630 CRL.RP No. 1161 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1161 OF 2025 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. MR.SADASHIVA, S/O SHEENA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O SHIVAGIRI NILAYA, SUBRAYA BETTU, ANJARU VILLAGE AND POST, PANCHANABETTU, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT, KARNATAKA. 2. MR.RATHNAKARA POOJARY, S/O BABU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A NO.1-140, NAVAGRAMA COLONY, HANEHALLI VILLAGE, BARKURU, BRAMHAVARA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT, KARNATAKA. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI NAVEEN KUMARA P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO, MALPE POLICE STATION, UDUPI DISTRICT, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39630 CRL.RP No. 1161 of 2025 REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALUR-560 001. 2. MR.ADHIKANTH MALIK, S/O VAIDYANATH MAILK, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, PERMANENT R/O BASUDEPURA, BRADRAK DISTRICT, ORISSA STATE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISHA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 20.12.2024 PASSED BY LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, UDUPI FOR REGISTERING CRL.MISC.NO.251/2024 IN CR.NO.24/2022 AND SC NO. 21/2025, FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 307 OF IPC REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT/MALPE POLICE STATION, ALONG WITH CRL.MISC.NO.251/2024, PENDING ON FILE OF HONBLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A., THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39630 CRL.RP No. 1161 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Office has raised office objection regarding maintainability of revision petition against order directing re-issuance of Non- Bailable Warrant, notice to surety, forfeiture of surety bond and registration of separate criminal miscellaneous petition for recovery of bond amount, in view of continued absence of accused. 2. Heard Smt.Anitha, learned HCGP for respondents. 3. This Revision Petition is filed by surety. At outset, order of forfeiture of surety on absence of accused would be an interlocutory order and there does not appear to be any determination of rights of parties. Grounds urged that accused was very much present at address and non-appearance was on account of non-service of summons would require to be urged before trial Court while seeking for recall of order impugned. 4. In view of above, office objection sustained, Revision Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12