- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25445 CRL.RP No. 441 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.441 OF 2023 BETWEEN: VASU M S/O MURUGESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO.52, 6TH CROSS 9TH ‘C’ MAIN ROAD MARIAPPANA PALYA K P AGRAHARA BENGALURU-560002 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA K N, ADVOCATE) AND: SUNILKUMAR G S/O T GANESHAN MAJOR R/AT NO.13, 12TH MAIN ROAD K P AGRAHARA BENGALURU-560023 …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING THIS COURT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AND FINE IMPOSED BY THE LEARNED SMALL CAUSES AND XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU (SCCH-09) VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 03.09.2018 PASSED IN C.C.NO.32319/2014 AND ETC. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25445 CRL.RP No. 441 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER The counsel for the petitioner again seeks time to take steps in respect of the respondent. 2. This Court noticed that, the counsel for the petitioner is not pursuing the matter diligently since this Court vide order dated 14.06.2023, suspended the sentence against the petitioner and thereafter the counsel for the petitioner was absent on several occasions and this Court ordered notice against the respondent and notice issued to the respondent was returned unexecuted. 3. Again on 24.04.2026, 25.04.2026 and 30.04.2026 also the counsel for the petitioner was absent and this Court has given the opportunity on the aforesaid dates to take steps against the respondent but till date, the counsel for the petitioner has not taken any steps to issue notice against the respondent and again seeks time to do the same. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25445 CRL.RP No. 441 of 2023 4. Having taken note of the fact that this petition is filed against the concurrent finding of both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court and the counsel for the petitioner is not diligent in prosecuting the matter. Hence, there is no ground to give one more opportunity to the counsel for the petitioner when the counsel for the petitioner is very lethargic and not taking steps against the respondent till date. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for not taking the steps against the respondent. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN