Karnataka High Court
CRL.A/639/2022 of SRI. DR. B. ANJINAPPA (SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S) DR. SATISH A Vs SRI K T KRISHNAIAH on 11 June 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:28159 CRL.A No. 639 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 639 OF 2022 ( A ) BETWEEN: SRI DR.B. ANJINAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR’S SRI. DR. SATISH A S/O LATE DR.
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:28159
CRL.A No. 639 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 639 OF 2022 (A)
BETWEEN:
SRI DR.B. ANJINAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR’S
SRI. DR. SATISH A
S/O LATE DR. ANJINAPPA B
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT NO.75, SURVEYOR STREET
BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE-560 004.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S JAGAN BABU, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))
AND:
SRI. K.T. KRISHNAIAH
S/O K.T. THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT TAVAREKERE VILLAGE
GOWDAGERE HOBLI, SIRA TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-560 000.
…RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S. 378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR NON- PROSECUTION DATED 31.01.2019 PASSED BY THE XXII
ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.7500/2018 ARISING
OUT OF P.C.R.NO.2957/2018 AND RESTORE THE SAID
FILE IN ITS ORIGINAL NUMBER TO PROCEED THE ABOVE
SAID CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
Digitally
signed by
SUSHMA
LAKSHMI B
S
Location:
High Court
of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:28159
CRL.A No. 639 of 2022
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
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 JUDGMENT
Case called out. None appears for the appellant.
2. It appears from the record that the complainant was remained absent before the trial Court. Hence, it was dismissed for non-prosecution in accordance with law. As against the said order, the complainant filed this appeal, however, he has not complied with the office-objections raised by the Registry in spite of sufficient opportunity has been given to him.
3. Accordingly, the criminal appeal stands dismissed for non-compliance of office-objections.
Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE
NR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4