- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010494912019 NC: 2026:KHC:48253 CRL.P No. 8118 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8118 OF 2019 BETWEEN: SRI. BHAGWAN MAHAVEER GAUSHALA TRUST (R) NH. 206, CHIKKARAHALLI, BANAVARA, C/O MANIKCHAND JAIN, MANIK FANCY STORES, HULIYAR ROAD, ARSIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, BANAVARA - 573 112, REPRESENTED BY SRI. MAHENDRA KUMAR MANAGER. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUJA SURENDRAN, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SAKLESHPURA TOWN POLICE STATION, SAKLESHPURA CIRCLE, SAKLESHPURA HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134. 2. MOHAMMED HANEEF GUDDEMANE AGED 33 YEARS, S/O T ABDUL KHADEER, R/O 4-128, GUDDEMANE HOUSE, NEAR SYNDICATE BANK, 62 THOKUR, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010494912019 NC: 2026:KHC:48253 CRL.P No. 8118 of 2019 JOKATHE, BALKAMPADY, MANGALORE - 575 011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOWMYA R, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.11.2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN IN CRL.RP.NO.191/2019 AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT i.e., HONOURABLE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SAKALESHPURA IN CR.NO.343/2019 (POLICE CR.NO.152/2019) DATED 26.09.2019. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Learned HCGP for State has filed a Memo stating that in C.C.no.654/2019, on file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Sakaleshpur, accused pleaded guilty on 21.10.2019 and an order of interim custody of 15 buffalos and 3 oxen was confirmed. 2. On perusal of records, it is not known whether petitioner herein have assailed said judgment. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010494912019 NC: 2026:KHC:48253 CRL.P No. 8118 of 2019 3. It is seen that by order dated 29.01.2021, a direction issued on 09.12.2019 for handing over custody of cattle to owners was stated to be complied and compliance was recorded. 4. None appears for petitioner. This would indicate that petitioner is not diligently pursuing matter. Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. 5. In view of dismissal of petition, pending application is dismissed as unnecessary. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11