Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 23247 (KAR)

PRAMOD KUMAR (A1) v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.P/1548/2022 · 2026-06-23

Ravi V Hosmani

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31277 CRL.P No. 1548 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1548 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. PRAMOD KUMAR (A1) S/O K C MAHADEVASWAMY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT 21, 12B CROSS KALYANA NAGARA T DASARAHALLI BENGALURU-560 057. 2. LAKSHMAMMA (A2) W/O K C MAHADEVASWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT 21, 12B CROSS KALYANANAGARA T DASARAHALLI BENGALURU-560 057. 3. SMT. PRATHIMA K M (A3) W/O MAHESH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.38, 26TH CROSS 4TH MAIN, MUNESHWARA BLOCK RAVINDRANAGARA T DASARAHALLI BENGALURU-560 057. …PETITIONERS [BY SRI HARISHA A.S., ADVOCATE (AB)] AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BAGALAGUNTE POLICE STATION Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31277 CRL.P No. 1548 of 2022 REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. SUMA W/O PRAMOD KUMAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT 21 13TH B CROSS KALYANANAGARA MALLASANDRA T DASARAHALLI BENGALURU-560 057. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAVEED S., HCGP FOR R1; SMT. THANUJA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS OF CHARGE SHEET IN S.C.NO.283/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XLV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-46) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.498-A, 307 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT REGISTERED AGAINST PETITIONER HEREIN ON THE BASIS OF COMPLAINT DATED 28.04.2018 IN FIR CR.NO.139/2018 AND ETC., THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31277 CRL.P No. 1548 of 2022 ORAL ORDER Learned HCGP and learned counsel for respondent no.2 present. 2. None appears for petitioners. Even on previous occasion, there was no representation. It is also seen that matter has been pending since 2022 without interim order. This would indicate that petitioners are not diligently pursuing petition and it is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46