IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5906 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. JAYALAKSHMI W/O KUMARASWAMY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 2. NAGARAJ S/O KUMARSWAMY AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O GUTTINAKRE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI ARSIKERE TALUK- 573103 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: JAGADEESH H.T. ADVOCATE ) AND KUMARASWAMY S/O DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O ARALIMARADA PALYA GARDEN HOUSE CHIKKANAYAKANHALLI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT- 572 124 ... RESPONDENT (VIDE ORDER DATED: 10.01.2019 NOTICE TO RESPONDENT DISPENSED WITH) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED: 16.05.2016 IN CRL.R.P.164/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT HASSAN.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Having regard to the grounds urged in the petition, notice to respondent is dispensed with.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 16.05.2016, passed by the V Addl. District Judge, Hassan in Crl.RP No.164/2015. By the said order, the learned Sessions Judge, Hassan had dismissed the revision petition for non- prosecution. The impugned order reads as follows:-
“Case called out No representation. Call again.
Case again called out 4.00 p.m., Appellant and counsel are absent. It is noticed that the steps has not been taken by the petitioner inspite of granting with sufficient opportunity from 19.11.2015. Hence, it is clear that the petitioner is not interested to prosecute the case. Hence, the revision petition filed by the Revision Petitioner is dismissed for non prosecution.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners’ submits that the impugned order is patently erroneous. Necessary process fee was paid by the petitioners for service of notice on the respondent as reflected in the notings made by the office dated 05.04.2016 and hence the impugned order be recalled.
4. On going through the copy of the order-sheet maintained in Crl.RP No.164/2015, it is noticed that necessary process fee was paid by the petitioners for service of notice on the respondent therein. Under the said circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error in dismissing the petition. As a result, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the said order is set-aside. The revision petition is restored to file.
Petition is allowed as indicated above.
*mn/-
Sd/- JUDGE