Dismissed

Sri Muniyappa v. Sri P N Venkataraghavan

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2024CRL.RP/194/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. The petitioner had been granted numerous adjournments to furnish process fee and petition copy for issuing notice to the respondent. The court found the matter listed multiple times without these documents and no appearance by the petitioner, deeming the counsel not diligent. The p

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed for non-furnishing of process fee and petition copy to issue notice against the respondent.

Sri Muniyappa Vs Sri P N Venkataraghavan — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:11605 CRL.RP No. 194 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.194 OF 2020

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI MUNIYAPPA, S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS RESIDING AT CHOWDADENAHALLI VILLAGE, JAYAMANGALA GROUP PANCHAYATH LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT. AND ALSO AT NO.1004, B WING CEDAR, 10^TH FLOOR, GODREJ WOODSMAN ESTATE, NEAR COLUMBIA ASIA HOSPITAL, BELLARY ROAD, HEBBAL, BENGALURU-560024.

¶10

Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

AND:

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. NIRANJAN GANIG N., ADVOCATE)

¶14

SRI P.N. VENKATARAGHAVAN, S/O B.NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDINF AT OM PLAZA, NO.715, MODI HOSPITAL ROAD, BENGALURU-560010.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTIOIN 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 21.11.2019 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU IN

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:11605 CRL.RP No. 194 of 2020

¶18

CRL.A.NO.1287/2016 IN CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 01.08.2016 PASSED BY THE HONBLE XX ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.68/2013 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE HONBLE XX ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.68/2013 DATED 01.08.2016.

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This petition was filed in the year 2020 and this Court suspended the sentence on 19.02.2021 and ordered to issue notice to the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not furnished the P.F. and petition copy to issue notice against the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner never appeared before the Court. On 24.03.2021, a week’s time was granted to do the needful. On 01.04.2021, the Court made it clear that if P.F. is not furnished within a week, appropriate order will be passed for not taking steps. On 17.04.2021, none appeared and finally a week’s time was granted to do the needful. On 15.09.2022 also none appeared. On 14.06.2023, a week’s time was granted as a last chance to do the needful. On 17.07.2023, 11.09.2023 and 05.12.2023 none appeared for the petitioner. On 18.01.2024, as a last chance permission was granted to do the needful. On 30.01.2024, one week’s time was granted to furnish process fee.

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11605 CRL.RP No. 194 of 2020

¶23

Even though the matter is listed for a dozen time after notice has been ordered, P.F. and petition copy has not been furnished. Hence, it is clear that the learned counsel for

¶24

the petitioner is not pursuing the matter diligently.

¶25

Hence, the petition is dismissed for non-furnishing of P.F. and petition copy to issue notice against the respondent.

¶26

Sd/JUDGE

¶27

MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Sri Muniyappa v. Sri P N Venkataraghavan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Muniyappa v. Sri P N Venkataraghavan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Harishith S R Vs State of Karnataka

Rajashekar @ Raja Vs the State of Karnataka

Rahathulla Vs Shaik Mohammed

Mohammad Farooq @ Cheela Farooq Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.M. Madhusudhan Rao Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Omkara Murthy Vs Shri B C Chandrukumar