- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30422 CRL.P No. 8043 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8043 OF 2019 BETWEEN: SRI H.D. GANGANNA S/O. LATE SRI. DEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R.AT NO.93, 4TH CROSS, BASAVESHWARA BADAVANE, BEML 3RD STAGE, RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 098. …PETITIONER (BY SRI R.B.SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: MANJUNATH H B S/O. SRI. BETTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.489, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, 4TH STAGE BEML LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 098. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI LOKESHA M., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.09.2019 PASSED BY LXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU [CCH-62] IN CRL.A.NO.5/2016. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30422 CRL.P No. 8043 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 30.02.2019 passed by LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-62) in Crl.A.no.5/2016, this petition is filed. 2. Learned counsel for respondent present physically submits even when there was no interim order, criminal appeal was not proceeded with perhaps due to pendency of this petition. It was submitted, challenging order vacating interim order was due to non-compliance of conditional interim order filed application under Section 389 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) directing petitioner to deposit 20% of fine amount before trial Court within 30 days of order was in accordance with law and challenge was untenable. Therefore, prays for disposal of petition. 3. There is no appearance for petitioner. Grounds urged in this petition are: "b. The impugned order stating that stay vacated is erroneous as there is no stay at all as on 30.09.2019 since stay was granted for a limited period by an order dated 05.01.2016 and when the condition imposed by the court for grant of interim order is not fulfilled, the stay order automatically stands vacated and thus the impugned order superfluous after lapse of 3 years. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30422 CRL.P No. 8043 of 2019 c. The court below ought to have disposed of the appeal on merits when the arguments on the main appeal already heard on 16.02.2017 and on 17.02.2017 and written arguments also filed on 19.07.2018." 4. It is contention of even petitioner that an interim order was granted on 05.01.2016 for a limited period and was not in existence at time of passing of impugned order. It is contended that Appellate Court ought to have proceeded with appeal on merits. 5. On perusal of order sheet in appeal, submission appears justified. It is unfortunate that grievance of petitioner as well as respondent-complainant is same and pendency of this petition has obstructed progress in appeal. 6. In view of above, petition is disposed of directing Appellate Court to proceed on merits as expeditiously as possible without regard to non-compliance of conditional interim order. In view of disposal, pending applications, if any, stand disposed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46