High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal appeal under Section 378 CrPC for default, as the appellant failed to comply with office objections despite being granted three weeks time.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2237 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SMT ANITHALAKSHMI S V W/O ANAND NAVADE HOUSE WIFE, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O NO.1922 GROUND FLOOR, 9TH CROSS, SREENIVASAIAH BLOCK BEML LAYOUT, III STAGE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 098 … APPELLANT (BY SRI. G.NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
GAJENDRA S/O RUPLA NAIK BUSINESS AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O NO.145/28, NO-E-14, C/O PRABHAKAR BUILDING B N REDDY LAYOUT BOMMASANDRA POST HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009
...RESPONDENT
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 15/10/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE ON HIS FILE IN CC NO.29814/17 AND B) GRANT SUCH OTHER ORDER OR RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS
2
FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
Vide order dated 17.02.2021, as a last chance three
weeks time was granted to comply with office objections and a peremptory order was passed to the effect that if the office objections are not complied with, within the said period, the appeal shall be listed for dismissal.
Though in the morning session, learned counsel for appellant was present and undertook to comply with office objections, the same is not complied with.
In view of the same as per order dated 17.02.2021, the appeal is dismissed for default.
Sd/JUDGE
RR
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anithalakshmi S V
Gajendra S/O Rupla Naik
J.M. Khazi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
