Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 72246 (KAR)

SMT KALPANA A NADIG SHARMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.P/4303/2020 · 2025-07-30

J M Khazi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29394 CRL.P No. 4303 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4303 OF 2020 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SMT KALPANA A NADIG SHARMA W/O G K NADIG SHARMA, D/O SUBBA RAO, AGED 56 YEARS, PROFESSION BY ADVOCATE AT SHIMOGGA BAR PERMANENT R/OF HIRIYURU VILLAGE-577301 BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIMOGA DIST. RESIDING AT 7TH CROSS ROAD, NEAR SYHADRI COLLEGE, SHIMOGGA-577401, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PHILOMENA ROSS, ADVOCATE-ABSENT) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ARAKALAGUD POLICE STATION, ARAKALAGUD TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001 Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29394 CRL.P No. 4303 of 2020 2. MR RANGASWAMY S/O PATEL JAVARE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/OF DEVIPURA VILLAGE, DODDAMAGE HOBLI, ARAKALGUDU TALUK-577302, HASSAN DISTRICT, KARNATAKA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.LAKSHMAN, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CR.NO.288/2015 OF ARAKALGUD POLICE STATION AND UNDER C.C.NO.387/2016 PENDING BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND J.M.F.C., ARAKALGUD, HASSAN. 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 petitioner. 2. No representation for petitioner even in the afternoon session. 3. This matter is of the year 2020. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29394 CRL.P No. 4303 of 2020 4. Vide order dated 18.07.2025, as a last chance, a week's time was granted to comply with the office objections, failing which necessary orders would be passed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Despite the same, office objections are not complied with. It appears petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. 6. Hence, petition is dismissed for default. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1