(BY SRI. SURESH SUBBAIAH, ADVOCATE) v. BANGALORE - 560 076
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Hence, the petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 378(4)
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 s. 138
Judgment
SRI. MADAN SRINIVAS, S/O. NITHYANAND RAO, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.001, SRI. AKSHAYA NILAYAM, YADAV FORM ESHWARI LAYOUT, J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 078, REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER, SMT. RENUKA DEVI. (BY SRI. SURESH SUBBAIAH, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT AND: SMT. VISHALAKSHI BHAT W/O SHREEKANTH V HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, NO.675/9, 12TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, SHREYAS COLONY, J.P. NAGAR, 7TH PHASE, BANGALORE - 560 078. AND ALSO OFFICE AT WORKING AS MANAGER HDFC LIFE NO.71, L.S.TOWERS, 1ST CROSS, ABOVE HDFC BANK, BTM LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 076 …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.04.2018 PASSED BY THE XVI A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.1017/2016 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT. Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:43944 CRL.A No. 1283 of 2018 THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. No representation, even when the matter is passed over twice and again called at 1.25 pm. The petition is of the year 2018. Office has raised objections and the same are not complied with even though the matter is listed for the fifth time. Order sheet dated 22.08.2019 reads as under: "Even though the present appeal has been posted for compliance of the office objections for the fourth time, but there is no representation. A week's time is granted to comply with the office objections, failing which, registry is directed to put up the file for dismissal." Inspite of that there is no progress in the matter. It appears that the petitioners is not interested in prosecuting the matter. Hence, the petition is dismissed. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 378(4); Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.