Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Mohammed Parveez Vs Mrs. Hepzibha — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Karnataka HC
2025
Mohammed Parveez Vs Mrs. HepzibhaMohammed Parveez v. Mrs. Hepzibha

Dismissed¶¶33

Mohammed Parveez v. Mrs. Hepzibha

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2025CRL.RP/1484/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal for non-prosecution of three criminal revision petitions under S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C.; High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, Ravi V Hosmani J, order dated 10.10.2025 (NC: 2025:KHC:40116); petitioner Mohammed Parveez (Paris Fashion) v. respondent Mrs. Hepzibha (Selvi Enterprises); challenge to order dated 10.10.2018 of LII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge in Crl.A.Nos.1267-1269/2017 modifying orders dated 11.08.2017 of XXIII Addl.C.M.M. in C.C.Nos.20777-20779/2013; grounds: no instructions to petitioner's counsel, non-compliance with conditional interim order, non-bailable warrant unsuccessful.

What did the court decide?

Since the petitioner failed to comply with the conditional interim order and his counsel had no instructions from the party, the petitioner was not diligently pursuing the petitions; accordingly, the petitions are dismissed for non-prosecution.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal revision petitions filed under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the appellate order dated 10.10.2018 should be dismissed for non-prosecution, in view of the petitioner's failure to comply with the conditional interim order and his counsel having no instructions from the party.

Court's answer

Since the petitioner failed to comply with the conditional interim order and his counsel had no instructions from the party, the petitioner was not diligently pursuing the petitions; accordingly, the petitions are dismissed for non-prosecution.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Petitions Nos. 1484, 1485 and 1486 of 2018, filed under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. by Mohammed Parveez, proprietor of Paris Fashion, against the common order dated 10.10.2018 passed by the LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Crl.A.Nos.1269/2017, 1267/2017 and 1268/2017 respectively, whereby the appellate court modified the orders dated 11.08.2017 passed by the XXIII Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru in C.C.Nos.20777/2013, 20778/2013 and 20779/2013, against Mrs. Hepzibha (Selvi Enterprises) — Dismissed for non-prosecution: counsel for petitioner submitted she had no instructions from the party; the petitioner had failed to comply with the conditional interim order; counsel for respondent stated he was unable to execute the impugned order or secure the petitioner's presence despite issuance of a non-bailable warrant; the Court concluded that the petitioner was not diligently pursuing the petitions and dismissed them for non-prosecution.

A

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:40116 CRL.RP No. 1484 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1485 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 1486 of 2018

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1484 OF 2018

C/W

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1485 OF 2018 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1486 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

MOHAMMED PARVEEZ PROPRIETOR OF PARIS FASHION S/O MOHAMMED ALI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/A NO.ETA, THE GARDEN APARTMENTS NO.1306-D, IRAS BLOCK, OPP BINNY MILL, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU.

…PETITIONER (COMMON)

(BY SMT.NIRMALA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI MAHANTESH SHETTAR, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

AND:

MRS. HEPZIBHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, W/O SAM & JAYA KUMAR REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR SELVI ENTERPRISES R/AT NO.9, A BLOCK, 004, ETA, THE GARDEN APARTMENTS OPP BINNY MILL ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 023.

…RESPONDENT (COMMON)

(BY SRI M.N.NEHRU, ADVOCATE)

NC: 2025:KHC:40116 CRL.RP No. 1484 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1485 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 1486 of 2018

2 -

HC-KAR

THIS CRL.RP 1484/2018 IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2018 PASSED BY THE LII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.1269/2017 WHEREIN THE COURT MODIFIED THE ORDER DATED 11.08.2017 PASSED BY THE XXIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.20777/2013.

THIS CRL.RP 1485/2018 IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2018 PASSED BY THE LII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.1267/2017 WHEREIN THE COURT MODIFIED THE ORDER DATED 11.08.2017 PASSED BY THE XXIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.20778/2013.

THIS CRL.RP 1486/2018 IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2018 PASSED BY THE LII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.1268/2017 WHEREIN THE COURT MODIFIED THE ORDER DATED 11.08.2017 PASSED BY THE XXIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.20779/2013.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40116 CRL.RP No. 1484 of 2018 C/W CRL.RP No. 1485 of 2018 CRL.RP No. 1486 of 2018

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

Smt.Nirmala, advocate appearing for Sri Mahantesh

Shettar, learned counsel for petitioner submits that she has no instructions from party. It is seen that petitioner has failed to comply with conditional interim order.

Learned counsel for respondent submits that he is

unable to execute impugned order and not able to secure presence of petitioner despite issuance of non-bailable warrant.

In view of above, there is no other go than to conclude that petitioner is not diligently pursuing petitions. Hence, petitions are dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

GRD

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the criminal revision petitions filed under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the appellate order dated 10.10.2018 should be dismissed for non-prosecution, in view of the petitioner's failure to comply with the conditional interim order and his counsel having no instructions from the party.medium confidence¶¶30
The court held
Since the petitioner failed to comply with the conditional interim order and his counsel had no instructions from the party, the petitioner was not diligently pursuing the petitions; accordingly, the petitions are dismissed for non-prosecution.ratio¶¶33

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

CR.P.C397¶¶21 401¶¶21

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 10.10.2018 passed by the LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Crl.A.No.1269/2017 (with companion appeals Crl.A.No.1267/2017 and Crl.A.No.1268/2017), whereby the appellate court modified the orders dated 11.08.2017 passed by the XXIII Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru in C.C.No.20777/2013 (and companion cases C.C.No.20778/2013 and C.C.No.20779/2013).¶¶21
LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru · 10.10.2018
Prior proceeding
Orders dated 11.08.2017 passed by the XXIII Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru in C.C.No.20777/2013 (companion cases C.C.No.20778/2013 and C.C.No.20779/2013), subsequently modified in appeal.¶¶21
Prior proceeding
Companion appeal Crl.A.No.1267/2017 (arising from C.C.No.20778/2013) was decided by the LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on 10.10.2018, modifying the Magistrate's order; forms subject matter of CRL.RP No. 1485 of 2018.¶¶22
Prior proceeding
Companion appeal Crl.A.No.1268/2017 (arising from C.C.No.20779/2013) was decided by the LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on 10.10.2018, modifying the Magistrate's order; forms subject matter of CRL.RP No. 1486 of 2018.¶¶23

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
MOHAMMED PARVEEZ, PROPRIETOR OF PARIS FASHION¶¶10
Smt. Nirmala, Sri Mahantesh Shettar
respondent
MRS. HEPZIBHA (REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SELVI ENTERPRISES)¶¶15
Sri M.N. Nehru

Coram

AI extract

Ravi V Hosmaniauthor¶¶25

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 10 Oct 2025 · October
Registered: 26 Dec 2018
Case no.: CRL.RP/1484/2018
CNR: KAHC010532372018
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: CRL.RP

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Ravi V Hosmani

Nagaraja Vs State of Karnataka
9 Oct 2025
Sunil Kumar @ Bomb Sunil Vs the State of Karnataka
9 Oct 2025
Murthy Vs State of Karnataka
9 Oct 2025
Smt. Musthari Banu Vs Shri.Syed Azmath
10 Oct 2025
M/S. Perfect Electricals Vs Mangalore Electricity Supply Company (Mescom)
10 Oct 2025
Smt. v. Narayanamma Vs Sri.R. Muniraju
10 Oct 2025

Cite this judgement

Mohammed Parveez v. Mrs. Hepzibha, CRL.RP/1484/2018 (KA), decided on 10 October 2025.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

CR.P.C397 · 401

View all statutes

Procedural history4

Order dated 10.10.2018 passed by the LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Crl.A.No.1269/2017 (with companion appeals Crl.A.No.1267/2017 and Crl.A.No.1268/2017), whereby the appellate court modified the orders dated 11.08.2017 passed by the XXIII Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru in C.C.No.20777/2013 (and companion cases C.C.No.20778/2013 and C.C.No.20779/2013).LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru · 10.10.2018
Orders dated 11.08.2017 passed by the XXIII Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru in C.C.No.20777/2013 (companion cases C.C.No.20778/2013 and C.C.No.20779/2013), subsequently modified in appeal.
Companion appeal Crl.A.No.1267/2017 (arising from C.C.No.20778/2013) was decided by the LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on 10.10.2018, modifying the Magistrate's order; forms subject matter of CRL.RP No. 1485 of 2018.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Ravi V Hosmani

Parties & counsel