Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 17069 (KAR)

M/S SURAJ ADVERTISERS INDIA PVT LTD v. DHANARAJ JAGADALE

CRL.RP/1288/2017 · 2026-03-12

V Srishananda

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15024 CRL.RP No. 1288 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1288 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. M/S SURAJ ADVERTISERS INDIA PVT LTD NO.1965/1, 2ND FLOOR SOUTH END D CROSS, 26TH MAIN (RAGI GUDDA TEMPLE ROAD), 9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 069 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR P RAGHU 2. P RAGHU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S SURAJ ADVERTISERS INDIA PVT LTD NO.1965/1, 2ND FLOOR, SOUTH END D CROSS 26TH MAIN (RAGI GUDDA TEMPLE ROAD) 9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 069 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHIDAMBARA G.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DHANARAJ JAGADALE S/O MARUTHI RAO JAGADALE PROPRIETOR OF JAGADALE ADVERTISING HIGH POINT IV, 10TH FLOOR, NO.4922-45, PALACE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P. KARUNAKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15024 CRL.RP No. 1288 of 2017 COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 06.09.2017 PASSED BY THE LX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AN DSESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.1040/2016 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 10.08.2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF XXII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.14601/2015 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite best efforts, he has no instructions from petitioner No.1 – Company to place the death certificate of the petitioner No.2 who was representing the Company. 2. Assuming that petitioner No.2 is no more, since petitioner No.1 is a legal entity, for want of instructions to proceed with the case, learned counsel for the petitioner expresses inability to proceed with the case. 3. Placing his submission on record, petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57