Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 76826 (KAR)

SRI DINESH KUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.P/1555/2023 · 2025-09-19

J M Khazi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37842 CRL.P No. 1555 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1555 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI DINESH KUMAR D/O SAMAPATH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT BHOGAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571313 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.DINESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHARAMARAJANAGAR RURAL POLICE CHAMARAJANAGARA TOWN, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001 2. REVAREND SHADAKSHARI CHANDRA MOHAN S/O REVAREND DEVANUJAN AGED 57 YEARS FATHER OF CHURCH Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37842 CRL.P No. 1555 of 2023 RESIDING AT TARIKERE CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT NOW R/AT PREMALAYA QUARTERS KASTHURU VILLAGE AND POST SANTHEMARAHALLI HOBLI CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-571313 3. JOHN VILIYAM S/O LATE SUNDAR RAJU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT BHOGAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-5713131 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.09.2023 IN CRL.RP.NO.21/2022 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGAR AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER Petitioner absent. 2. Even in the afternoon session petitioner is absent. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37842 CRL.P No. 1555 of 2023 3. This matter is of the year 2023. 4. Vide order dated 04.06.2025, as a last chance, two weeks 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.: 5