Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 19873 (KAR)

MRS YASHODA v. SRI KUMARASWAMI

CRL.RP/1685/2025 · 2026-06-09

H P Sandesh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27401 CRL.RP No. 1685 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1685 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. MRS. YASHODA AGE ABOUT 46 YEARS W/O LATE SHASHIDHARA R/A NO.4, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST CROSS MARUTHI NAGAR, MADIVALA BENGALURU-560 068. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABDUL ANSAR P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. KUMARASWAMI S/O LATE ERAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/A MATRUSHRI KRUPA RENKEDAGUTTU BELTHANGADY TALUK D K DISTRICT KARNATAKA – 574 214 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GIRISH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/ ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF CRL.A.NO.221/2022 DTD 28.08.2024 BY THE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU, CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 03.11.2022 PASSED IN C.C.NO.326/2017 BY THE PRL. (SR) CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27401 CRL.RP No. 1685 of 2025 BELTHANGADY, D.K., BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE REVISION PETITION AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This Court vide order dated 22.01.2026 suspended sentence, subject to depositing 50% of the fine amount, inclusive of the amount already deposited if any before the Trial Court within a period of four weeks. 2. The application seeking extension of time to deposit the amount is not filed within time and the same is filed on 03.06.2026 after almost five months and also not tendered any Demand Draft along with the application in compliance of the conditional order passed by this Court. When such being the case, the application seeking extension of time cannot be considered and the same is rejected. Consequently, the revision petition is also dismissed, since the appeal is not yet admitted. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6