BENGALURU-560077 v. BENGALURU
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
2025, the revision petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
SMT. SOWBHAGYAMMA W/O RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS WORKING AS TEACHER R/A NO.34 ASHWATHANAGARA LAYOUT ROAD DR SRK NAGAR POST BENGALURU-560077 …PETITIONER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI SHIVANNA K G, ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: THE BENGALURU, BENGALURU RURAL AND RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT CENTRAL CO- OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REP BY ITS BRANCH SUPERVISOR CIVIL STATION BRANCH BENGALURU …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.01.2021 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4306 CRL.RP No. 948 of 2023 AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.692/2018 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER The counsel for the petitioner is absent. This revision petition is of the year 2023. On perusal of the order sheet, it discloses that when the matter was posted before the Court i.e., on 08.08.2023, 27.07.2024 and 13.08.2024, the counsel for the petitioner was absent and on
21.08.2024, 03.09.2024 and 26.09.2024 at the request of the counsel for the petitioner, time was granted to pay PF to issue notice to the respondent and again the matter listed before the Court on 30.10.2024 and
22.01.2025. On 22.01.2025 also the counsel for the petitioner was absent and this Court again granted a week’s time to pay the PF and also made it clear that if PF not paid, the matter will be dismissed on the next date of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4306 CRL.RP No. 948 of 2023 hearing. Today also the counsel for the petitioner is absent and PF also not paid. Hence, in view of the order dated
Operative part
22.01.2025, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: 2025, the revision petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
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.