Karnataka High Court
CRL.RP/974/2026 of R K SHIVARAJU Vs SMT DIVYASHREE C R on 22 June 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:30813 CRL.RP No. 974 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.974 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. R.K. SHIVARAJU S/O KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RAJAGHATTA VILLAGE
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.974 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1.
R.K. SHIVARAJU
S/O KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RAJAGHATTA VILLAGE
SHILANERE HOBLI,
K.R. PETE TALUK,
MANDYA - 571 426.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M. SHARASS CHANDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT. DIVYASHREE C.R.,
W/O BALAKRISHNA R.J.,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
RESIDENT OF RAMAPURA VILLAGE
SALIGRAMA HOBLI AND TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 008.
…RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401
(FILED U/S.438 R/W SEC.442 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 10.10.2024 IN
C.C.NO.25/2024 PASSED BY LEARNED ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC AT KRISHNARAJANAGAR, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER DATED 17.03.2026 PASSED BY THE IN VIII ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU SITTING AT
HUNSUR,
IN
CRL.A.NO.5117/2025
AND
CONSEQUENTLY
ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS AND THE ABOVE MATTER MAY BE
REMAND BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT.
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
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.
ORAL ORDER
This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear before the Trial Court, inspite of opportunity being given before the Trial Court to cross-examine P.W.1 and accused never appeared and even the accused also did not choose to appear before the Trial Court and instead, on several occasions, filed exemption petition and the same was also allowed. Even when the matter was listed for cross-examination, he did not appear before the Court and the counsel was also absent. However, in the ends of justice, the Trial Court has given an opportunity by imposing cost of Rs.500/- and cost is also not paid and on the next date of hearing, both accused and the counsel did not appear before the Court. Hence, cross of P.W.1 was taken as ‘nil’. Even after the case was set down for hearing also, accused and the counsel never appeared before the Court. Hence, the Trial Court proceeded to pass an order. Therefore, I do not find
HC-KAR
any ground to entertain this revision petition and inspite of an opportunity being given, the opportunity is not utilized by the petitioner/accused.
3. Now, learned counsel for the petitioner files memo before this Court producing certified copy of the order sheet. On perusal of the same, it is very clear that, inspite of opportunity being given, the same was not utilized. Hence, question of granting one more opportunity as sought by learned counsel for the petitioner for remanding the matter does not arise and no defence evidence is led by the accused and even not cross-examined the witness and also not taken any effort to file an application even after closure of evidence of P.W.1 and throughout continued with the proceedings. Hence, question of entertaining this revision petition does not arise.
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61