Dismissed¶¶50

Sri. Keshav G v. Smt. Kala v

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2025CRL.RP/1034/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC criminal revision dismissed for non-prosecution; CRL.RP 1034/2022 and 1029/2022; petitioner Keshav G; respondents Kala V, Krithin K, Krupal K; counsel Sri. Gangadhar absent; filed under S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C.; challenged Crl.A.Nos.2175/2018 and 2257/2018 (LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, order dated 14.07.2020) confirming with modifications MMTC-VI orders dated 26.09.2018 in Crl.Misc.No.51/2012; domestic violence allegations; office objections not complied with; listed five times; no merits adjudicated.

What did the court decide?

Despite sufficient opportunity, the petitioner did not comply with office objections; the matters had been listed five times for such non-compliance, indicating the revision petitioner was not diligent in pursuing the matter. ¶¶49

Sri. Keshav G Vs Smt. Kala v — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:44465 CRL.RP No. 1034 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 1029 of 2022

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1034 OF 2022

¶8

C/W

¶9

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1029 OF 2022

¶10

IN CRL.RP No. 1034/2022

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. KESHAV G S/O LATE SRI. K. GUNDU RAO AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDENT AT NO.3, 2ND MAIN ROAD MANIVAILASA GARDEN KAMAKSHIPALYA BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶14

(BY SRI. GANGADHAR, ADVOCATE - ABSENT )

¶15

AND:

¶16

…PETITIONER

¶17

SMT. KALA V W/O SRI. KESHAVA G AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶18

KRITHIN K S/O SRI KESHAVA G AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:44465 CRL.RP No. 1034 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 1029 of 2022

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

KRUPAL K

¶23

D/O KESHAVA G

¶24

AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS

¶25

RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDENTS AT NO.7, MALLIKARJUNASWAMY TEMPLE STREET BEEGAMUDRE LANE, CHICKPETE BENGALURU - 560 053

¶26

…RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF THE LEARNED LXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE DATED 14.07.2020 IN CRL.A.NO.2175/2018 CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT WITH MODIFICATIONS OF THE ORDERS PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.51/2012 DATED 26.09.2018 BY THE LEARNED MMTC-VI AND EXONERATE THE REVISION PETITIONER FROM THE ALLEGATION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE R.P.

¶27

IN CRL.RP NO. 1029/2022

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

SRI. KESHAV G S/O LATE SRI K. GUNDU RAO AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDENT AT NO.3, 2ND MAIN ROAD MANIVAILASA GARDEN KAMASKHIPALYA BENGALURU - 560 079

¶30

...PETITIONER

¶31

(BY SRI. GANGADHAR, ADVOCATE - ABSENT )

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44465 CRL.RP No. 1034 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 1029 of 2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

AND:

¶35

SMT. KALA V W/O SRI KESHAVA G AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶36

KRITHIN K

¶37

S/O SRI KESHAVA G

¶38

AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶39

KRUPAL K

¶40

D/O KESHAVA G AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS

¶41

RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDENTSS AT NO.7, MALLIKARJUNASWAMY TEMPLE STREET BEEGAMUDRE LANE, CHICKPETE BENGALURU - 560 053.

¶42

...RESPONDENTS

¶43

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF THE Ld. LXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU DATED 14.07.2020 IN CRL.A.NO.2257/2018 CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT WITH MODIFICATION OF ORDERS PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.51/2012 DATED 26.09.2018 BY THE Ld. MMTC-VI, BENGALURU CITY AND EXONERATE THE REVISION PETITIONER FROM THE ALLEGATION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE REVISION PETITION.

¶44

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

¶45

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44465 CRL.RP No. 1034 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 1029 of 2022

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶48

ORAL ORDER

¶49

Despite sufficient opportunity being given to petitioner, office objections have not been complied with. Today this matter is listed, for fifth time, for noncompliance of office objections. This would indicate that Revision petitioner is not diligent in pursuing matter.

¶50

Revision Petitions are dismissed for non-

¶51

prosecution.

¶52

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶53

HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 CT: BHK

Sri. Keshav G v. Smt. Kala v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Keshav G v. Smt. Kala v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arjun Chandra Vs Praveen Kumar K

M/S Jaya Engineering Works Vs Sri Nagaraj @ Nagarajan

Sri Vijayalakshmi Vs State of Karnataka by

Mr. Keshav Daga Vs Miss. Nilisha Maheshwari

State of Karnataka Vs Ananda

Basha @ Khaleel Basha Vs the State of Karnataka