Dismissed¶¶27

Sri.M.P.Damodar v. Mrs.Gayathri B.Rao

Karnataka HC15 Sept 2025CRL.P/432/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), CRL.P No. 432 of 2023, decided 15-09-2025, J.M. Khazi J. — S.482 Cr.PC petition challenging order dt. 26.07.2022 on accused/respondent's S.311 Cr.PC application DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION; petitioner absent despite Court notice (01.07.2025) and conditional order (28.08.2025); pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

As the petitioner, duly served with notice, neither appeared before the Court nor engaged any learned counsel despite a conditional order, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. ¶¶27

Sri.M.P.Damodar Vs Mrs.Gayathri B.Rao — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:36593 CRL.P No. 432 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 432 OF 2023

¶7

(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.M.P.DAMODAR S/O LATE CHANDU SHETTY AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/O D.NO. C-302, BRIGADE PINNACLE NEAR DEREBAIL CHURCH MANGALORE-575 006

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.M.P.DAMODAR, ABSENT)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

MRS.GAYATHRI B.RAO W/O SURESH BAKAL PRATHVI TAILORING AND GARMENTS UTILITY ROYAL TOWERS NEW CITY CENTRE MALL K.S.RAO ROAD, MANGALORE-575 001

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(NIL)

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.07.2022 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION U/S 311 OF CR.PC OF THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:36593 CRL.P No. 432 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Vide order dated 01.07.2025, a Court notice was issued to the petitioner on the ground that learned counsel who is appearing for him is no more.

¶25

The Court notice was duly served on petitioner. Despite the same he has neither appeared before this Court nor engaged any learned counsel to represent him.

¶26

Vide order dated 28.08.2025, a conditional order was passed to enable the petitioner to engage the services of another learned counsel, failing which necessary orders would be passed for dismissal of the petition. Despite the same, the petitioner has neither appeared before this Court nor engaged any learned counsel to represent him.

¶27