The Karnataka High Court dismissed a criminal appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. filed by a complainant who showed no interest in prosecuting the matter or complying with office objections over four years.
Appeal dismissed for non-compliance of office objections as well as for non-prosecution.
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.
NC: 2023:KHC:44539-DB CRL.A No. 1815 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1815 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SRI SRINIVASA MURTHY, S/O SRI MYLARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NERALEKATTE PALYA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU.
…APPELLANT
(BY SMT. DIVYA R, ADVOCATE [ABSENT])
AND:
Digitally signed by D HEMA
Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) CR.P.C TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED 10.04.2019, PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE, AT TUMAKURU IN S.C.NO.93/2017, ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 148, 341, 302 R/W 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, DR. H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This appeal is filed by the complainant in the year
2019, however, till date, the appellant is not evincing any interest in complying with the office objections.
not less than four opportunities were given to the appellant to comply the office objections till now. Thus, for nearly four years, the appellant has not taken any steps to comply with the office objections, which, as on the date, are twenty (20) in numbers and several of them are too trivial and simple in nature, which could have been complied within no time. Still the appellant has not shown any interest to comply with the office objections.
dismissed for default, however, in the instant case, the appeal has not yet been ripened for the first hearing, since it is still in the stage of compliance of office objections before ripening for the first hearing in the Court, as such, there is no obstacle to dismiss this appeal. Since the appellant has shown that he is not interested in prosecuting this matter and nor even in complying with the office objections, accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed for non-compliance of office objections as well as for non-prosecution.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
AG
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3.1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal appeal filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. shall be dismissed for default where the appellant has failed to comply with office objections for four years.
Whether the non-prosecution of the appellant justifies dismissal of the criminal appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Srinivasa Murthy
Puttaraju K
Shashikumar
Arun Kumar
Renukamma
Gangamma
H.B. Prabhakara Sastry
Umesh M. Adiga
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
