Karnataka High Court
CRL.RP/384/2026 of SMT. MAHALAKSHMI C Vs SRI. GIRISH M B on 6 July 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:33537 CRL.RP No. 384 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.384 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MAHALAKSHMI C., W/O DINESH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.11/1, 4TH
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.384 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. MAHALAKSHMI C.,
W/O DINESH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO.11/1, 4TH CROSS
2ND MAIN, AZAD NAGAR
NEAR AYYAPPA SWAMY TEMPLE
CHAMARAJA PETE
BENGALURU-560 018.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LOKESHA M.Y., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI. GIRISH M.B.,
S/O BORAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO.53, 9TH CROSS
SRINIVASA NAGAR
SUNKADAKATTE
BENGALURU-560 091.
…RESPONDENT
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
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
DATED 05.12.2025 PASSED BY THE LVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-59), IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.988/2023, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.6.2023, PASSED BY
Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
THE 36TH ACMM, BENGALURU, IN C.C.NO.30430/2019 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner once again has filed an application for extension of time, since the same was rejected earlier. The records also reveal that when the accused was arrested, he had undertaken to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, but paid only an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and once again, when the amount was not paid, non-bailable warrant was issued. It is clear that the petitioner is approaching the Court again and again for extension of time without making payment as undertaken by filing an application.
3. Hence, I.A.No.4/2026 is rejected. In view of non- compliance of conditional order, question of considering this revision petition does not arise, as the same is not yet admitted.
HC-KAR
Accordingly, revision petition is also dismissed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8