Renuka. T. N. Vs Smt. Uma — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Renuka. T. N. Vs Smt. Uma — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the 50% deposit stipulated in the conditional order dated 14.01.2026 is a fine amount or a cheque amount, as raised through I.A.No.3/2026 seeking modification of that order +1 more

Court's answer

The order dated 14.01.2026 is clear: the sentence stands suspended subject to deposit of 50% of the fine amount, inclusive of any amount already deposited before the Trial Court.

Ratio / Principle

Since the order dated 14.01.2026 clearly requires payment of 50% of the fine amount, modification of that order does not arise; I.A.No.3/2026 is accordingly rejected.

Key takeaways

Although the petitioner's counsel submitted that a demand draft was taken in March 2026 itself, this disclosed that the conditional order dated 14.01.2026 remained uncomplied with till date.ratio¶28
The revision petition, which is not yet admitted, is dismissed for non-compliance of the order dated 14.01.2026, even though a three-week extension had been granted on 26.02.2026.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Petition (CRL.RP No. 61 of 2026) filed under S. 397 r/w 401 CrPC (parenthetically noted as filed under S. 438 r/w 442 'BNNS') challenging the judgment and order dated 22.11.2025 in Crl.A No.1073/2023 of the LVIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. By conditional order dated 14.01.2026 the High Court had suspended the petitioner's sentence subject to deposit of 50% of the fine amount, inclusive of any amount already deposited before the Trial Court. I.A.No.3/2026, filed in May 2026 seeking modification of that order on the question whether the 50% payment was a fine amount or a cheque amount, was rejected: the earlier order being clear, modification did not arise. Although time had been extended by three weeks on 26.02.2026, compliance was not made (the petitioner's counsel submitting only that a demand draft was taken in March 2026); the revision petition, still unadmitted, was dismissed for non-compliance of the order dated 14.01.2026. Oral order of H.P. Sandesh, J., dated 09.07.2026.

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:34652 CRL.RP No. 61 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

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

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.61 OF 2026

BETWEEN:

RENUKA T N AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS W/O SRI SHIVA MURTHY R/AT NO.36, C/O BASAPPASWAMY NO.01, 1^ST MAIN, 1^ST BLOCK BYRASANDRA, EAST JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560011

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN C, ADVOCATE) AND:

SMT. UMA Digitally signed by DEVIKA M AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS Location: HIGH W/O MEHRARAM COURT OF R/AT NO.45/17, GROUND FLOOR KARNATAKA 5^TH CROSS, 19^TH MAIN MUNESHWARA BLOCK BENGALURU - 560026

…RESPONDENT

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 22.11.2025 PASSED IN CRL.A NO.1073/2023 BY THE LVIII ADDL.,DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY AND ETC.

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:34652 CRL.RP No. 61 of 2026

HC-KAR

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

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

ORAL ORDER

I.A.No.3/2026 is filed by the counsel for the petitioner

seeking modification of the order dated 14.01.2026 wherein it is stated that whether payment of 50% is a fine amount or a cheque amount.

The order dated 14.01.2026 is very clear that sentence is suspended for the petitioner subject to depositing of 50% of the fine amount inclusive of the amount already deposited if any before the Trial Court. When there is a clear order that sentence is suspended subject to payment of 50% of the fine amount, modification of the said order does not arise. Accordingly, I.A.No.3/2026 is rejected.

On perusal of the records, it discloses that this Court vide order dated 14.01.2026 suspended the sentence of the petitioner passing conditional order. But till date, the petitioner has not complied with the said order. On 26.02.2026

NC: 2026:KHC:34652 CRL.RP No. 61 of 2026

3 -

HC-KAR

also, this Court extended the time for three weeks for compliance of the order dated 14.01.2026. Even though the conditional order was passed in the month of January 2026 and extension also granted in the month of February 2026, I.A.No.3/2026 is filed in the month of May 2026 seeking modification of the order dated 14.01.2026. The counsel for the petitioner also submits that DD is already taken in the month of March 2026 itself. This discloses that till date, the conditional order is not complied. The revision petition is also not yet admitted. Hence, the petition is dismissed for noncompliance of order dated 14.01.2026.

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SN