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.

Ashwini S Vs Uday R — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
Ashwini S Vs Uday RAshwini S v. Uday R

Dismissed¶31

Ashwini S v. Uday R

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2026CRL.RP/471/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; CRL.RP No. 471 of 2026; H.P. Sandesh J.; decided 08.06.2026; revision under S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C (S.438 r/w 442 BNSS) against judgments dated 16.12.2025 (Crl.Apl. No.112/2025, LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, CCH-62) and 17.12.2024 (C.C. No.4697/2022, VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes & Addl. CJM, SCCH-02); dismissed at admission for non-compliance with conditional interim order dated 21.04.2026 (suspension of sentence conditioned on deposit of 50% of fine by 30.04.2026 and Rs.2,00,000/- bond with two sureties); no extension of time sought; no Demand Draft produced; revision not admitted.

What did the court decide?

Because the conditional order dated 21.04.2026 was not complied with — no fine deposited, no Demand Draft brought, no application for extension of time filed — no ground is made out to consider the revision petition; it is not admitted except suspending the sentence.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the revision petition merits admission where the petitioner has not complied with this Court's conditional order dated 21.04.2026 (deposit of 50% of the fine amount and execution of a Rs.2,00,000/- bond with two sureties) and has sought no extension of time.

Court's answer

Because the conditional order dated 21.04.2026 was not complied with — no fine deposited, no Demand Draft brought, no application for extension of time filed — no ground is made out to consider the revision petition; it is not admitted except suspending the sentence.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's counsel took no steps to comply with the conditional order: no application for extension of time to deposit the fine amount was filed, and no effort was made (including bringing any Demand Draft) to meet the conditions of suspension.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Petition (CRL.RP No. 471 of 2026, filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C, corresponding to Section 438 r/w 442 BNSS) challenging the judgments dated 16.12.2025 in Crl.Apl. No.112/2025 (LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, CCH-62) and dated 17.12.2024 in C.C. No.4697/2022 (VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City, SCCH-02), DISMISSED at the admission stage by the High Court of Karnataka (H.P. Sandesh, J.) on 08.06.2026 for non-compliance with the Court's conditional order dated 21.04.2026, which had suspended the sentence subject to deposition of 50% of the fine amount (inclusive of the sum already in deposit) on or before 30.04.2026 and execution of a bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties. The petitioner neither made the deposit nor sought extension of time; the Court held that no ground existed to consider the revision and that it was 'not admitted except suspending the sentence'.

A

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:27069 CRL.RP No. 471 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.471 OF 2026

BETWEEN:

ASHWINI S., D/O. LATE SURESH K V AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.56, EWS HOUSING BOARD COLONY R.S. NAIDU NAGAR NEAR ST. PHILOMINA CHURCH MYSURU – 570 007

AND ALSO RESIDING AT NO.826, ANANGA 52^ND CROSS, NEAR SBI BANK, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, 1^ST STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 078.

…PETITIONER

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AND:

(BY SRI. G.K. VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

UDAY R., S/O. RAMESH M, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.263, 8TH MAIN NAGENDRA BLOCK, SRINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 060.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. B. VIJAY SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:27069 CRL.RP No. 471 of 2026

HC-KAR

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.12.2025 IN CRL.APL. NO.112/2025 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE LXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-62) AND 17.12.2024 IN C.C. NO.4697/2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE VI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-02).

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL ORDER

This matter is listed for admission and I have heard

learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

This Court passed an order on 21.04.2026 and suspended the sentence directing the revision petitioner to deposit 50% of the fine amount inclusive of the fine amount already in deposit on or before 30.04.2026 before the Trial Court and also directed to execute a bond for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties. The counsel for the petitioner has also not filed any application before this Court for extension of time to deposit the fine amount and comply with the conditional order.

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:27069 CRL.RP No. 471 of 2026

HC-KAR

Under the circumstances, no ground is made out to consider this revision and when the order of this Court has not been complied with and the counsel has not taken any efforts to comply with the order passed by this Court or filed an application seeking extension of time or even not brought any Demand Draft in compliance of the order passed by this Court, hence, in view of non-compliance of conditional order passed by this Court, no ground is made out to consider this revision petition and the same is not admitted except suspending the sentence.

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the revision petition merits admission where the petitioner has not complied with this Court's conditional order dated 21.04.2026 (deposit of 50% of the fine amount and execution of a Rs.2,00,000/- bond with two sureties) and has sought no extension of time.¶30
The court held
Because the conditional order dated 21.04.2026 was not complied with — no fine deposited, no Demand Draft brought, no application for extension of time filed — no ground is made out to consider the revision petition; it is not admitted except suspending the sentence.ratio¶30

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Cr.P.C397 r/w 401¶21
BNSS438 r/w 442¶21

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment dated 16.12.2025 in Crl.Apl. No.112/2025 (LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-62)) together with judgment dated 17.12.2024 in C.C. No.4697/2022 (VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City (SCCH-02)), both of which the revision petitioner prayed to set aside.¶21
LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-62); VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City (SCCH-02) · 16.12.2025 and 17.12.2024
Prior proceeding
Trial court judgment dated 17.12.2024 in C.C. No.4697/2022 rendered by the VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Cases and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City (SCCH-02).¶21
Prior proceeding
Appellate judgment dated 16.12.2025 in Crl.Apl. No.112/2025 before the LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-62); challenged in this revision.¶21
Prior proceeding
Interim order dated 21.04.2026 of this Court suspended the sentence on conditions: deposit of 50% of the fine amount (inclusive of the sum already in deposit) on or before 30.04.2026 before the Trial Court, and execution of a Rs.2,00,000/- bond with two sureties; the petitioner complied with neither and sought no extension of time.¶27

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Ashwini S.¶10
G.K. Venkata Reddy
respondent
Uday R.¶16
B. Vijay Shetty

Coram

AI extract

H.P. Sandeshauthor¶23

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 8 Jun 2026 · June
Registered: 18 Mar 2026
Case no.: CRL.RP/471/2026
CNR: KAHC010202982026
Bench: H.p.sandesh
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 H.p.sandesh

Smt. Susheelamma Vs Sri D S Damarugendra
5 Jun 2026
Paramesha K S Vs Arunkumar K K@ Arun
5 Jun 2026
Yenjappa S/O Siddappa Vs Smt.Kenchamma W/O Muddappa
5 Jun 2026
Mr a Alfred Vs State of Karnataka
8 Jun 2026
Mr. Jayakumar B Vs Mr. Basavaraju U H
8 Jun 2026
Titan Engineers Vs M/S.Trident Industries
8 Jun 2026

Cite this judgement

Ashwini S v. Uday R, CRL.RP/471/2026 (KA), decided on 8 June 2026.

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 r/w 401
BNSS438 r/w 442

View all statutes

Procedural history4

Judgment dated 16.12.2025 in Crl.Apl. No.112/2025 (LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-62)) together with judgment dated 17.12.2024 in C.C. No.4697/2022 (VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City (SCCH-02)), both of which the revision petitioner prayed to set aside.LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-62); VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City (SCCH-02) · 16.12.2025 and 17.12.2024
Trial court judgment dated 17.12.2024 in C.C. No.4697/2022 rendered by the VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Cases and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City (SCCH-02).
Appellate judgment dated 16.12.2025 in Crl.Apl. No.112/2025 before the LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-62); challenged in this revision.

View full history

Bench / Coram

H.P. Sandesh

Parties & counsel