The High Court at Bangalore dismissed a criminal revision petition wherein the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the petition. The court held that any interim orders granted prior to withdrawal had since become spent and infructuous.
The criminal revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn; any interim orders granted have spent themselves.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2013
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
Criminal Revision Petition No. 9 of 2012
Between:
K.M.Krishna Son of Late K.C.Mele Gowda Aged about 51 years Residing at Door No.2457, 1st Cross Gandhi Nagar, Mandya
…Petitioner
(By Sri. S.G.Rajendra Reddy, Advocate) And: G. Gayathri Devi Daughter of P.M.Govindappa Aged about 41 years Residing Near Bus Stop Palle Halli, Srirangapatna Taluk Mandya District In the petition showed Door No. 2457, 1st Cross Gandhinagar Mandya District, Care of Angadi Saraswathi, Mellapura Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District
... Respondent
(By Sri. Raja Subramanya Bhat, Government Pleader)
This criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the order dated 30/11/2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 70/11 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Srirangapatna.
This criminal revision petition coming on for orders this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R
The learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo
seeking leave of the court to withdraw the petition. The memo is placed on record and the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
that the petition has been strategically withdrawn as there was already an indication by this court that insofar as I.As.2/2012 and 3/2012 filed by the respondent are concerned, the petitioner would have to meet the prayers therein as an interim measure before consideration of his petition and therefore, to avoid the same, has sought to withdraw the petition in the absence of the respondent and her counsel.
However, since the petition seeks to challenge an order in
favour of the respondent, it is open for the respondent to
enforce the same, forthwith. Any interim order granted has
spent itself out and is infructuous.
Sd/JUDGE
Rd/-
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K. M. Krishna
G. Gayathri Devi
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
