IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRL.P.NO. 6715/2017 BETWEEN 1. MRS. PRIYANKA GAUTAM SARAF D/O. SUBHASHCHANDRA MITTAL W/O. GAUTAM KISHANLAL SARAF AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
2. SUBHASHCHANDRA MITTAL S/O. LATE MEGHRAJ MITTAL AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
3. SUSHILADEVI SUBHASHCHANDRA MITTAL W/O. SUBHASHCHANDRA MITTAL AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 4. GAURAV SUBHASHCHANDRA MITTAL S/O. SUBHASHCHANDRA MITTAL AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
APPLICANT NOS. 1 TO 4 RESIDE AT 4/A-303, SAMARPAN COMPLEX NEAR ST. FRANCIS HIGH SCHOOL JESAL PARK BHAYANDAR EAST-401 105.
5. RIYAZ RASHID KHAN S/O. RASHID KHAN AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
6. SARIKA RIYAZ KHAN W/O. RIYAZ RASHID KHAN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS APPLICANT NOS. 5 TO 6 RESIDE AT D1/501, PUSHKAR, KANCHAN PUSHP KAVESAR, GHODBUNDER ROAD THANE WEST-400 615 MAHARASHTRA. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI B.J. HADVALE, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE SENIOR INSPECTOR OF POLICE SUBRAMANYANAGAR POLICE STATION 67, DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD RAJAJI NAGAR BENGALURU-560 010.
2. MR. GAUTAM KISHANLAL SARAF A/301, BRIGADE GATEWAY DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD MALLESHWARAM (WEST) BENGALURU-560 055 KARNATAKA.
AND NO.4, 2ND FLOOR, 4247 19TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS SUBRAMANYANAGAR RAJAJINAGAR II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 021 KARNATAKA. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, H.C.G.P.) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO 1) QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE FIR NO.199/2016 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 417, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 5204, 384, 389, 120B, 506, 149 R/W 34 OF THE IPC, 1860 AND SECTION 66D OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT SUBRAMANYANAGAR POLICE STATION, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALURU-560 010, AT THE INSTANCE OF THE WRITTEN COMPLAINT DATED 05.08.2016 MADE TO IT BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R None appear for petitioners.
2. On account of non-compliance of office objections, matter has been adjourned on more than three occasions. In fact, on 31.07.2018, this Court had imposed a cost of `.1,500/-.
3. Note made by the Registry would indicate that neither cost has been paid nor office objections have been complied. This would clearly indicate that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting this petition.
4. Hence, petition stands dismissed. In the event of an application for recalling of this order is filed, it shall be accompanied by the receipt for having paid the cost, as otherwise, Registry is directed not to list the application.
SD/- JUDGE ST