Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S. Sri. Sai Agro Products vs Sri. G P Dinesh on 3 June, 2022

Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry

Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JUNE 2022

                       BEFORE

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

  CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.461 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

M/S. SRI SAI AGRO PRODUCTS
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SMT.P.ARUNA,
W/O KANTHARAJU,
AGE 50 YEARS,
NO.74, 1ST CROSS, VIDYAMANYA NAGAR,
ANDRAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-560091.                      .. PETITIONER

(BY SRI.N. SURESHA, ADVOCATE FOR
PETITIONER-ABSENT)

AND:

SRI.G.P.DINESH
S/O G.N.PUTTASWAMY GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
NO.37, 10TH CROSS,
VENUGOPAL NAGAR, NAGASANDRA POST,
BANGALORE-560073.                      .. RESPONDENT

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
02.02.2019 PASSED BY THE LXI ADDITIOAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.2621/2018 AND
JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 27.11.2018 PASSED BY THE
                                                   Crl.R.P.No.461/2021
                                2


XXVI ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.20143/2016 BY
ALLOWING THIS CRL.RP.

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING
HEARING, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

None appear for the petitioner either physically or through video conference.

2. No reasons are forthcoming for non-appearance of learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that in spite of granting several and sufficient opportunities, even after imposing a cost of `500/-, the petitioner has neither complied the office objections nor paid the cost. Therefore, it can be inferred that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter, as such, the petition stands dismissed both for non-compliance of office objections and non- prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE CBC