High Court Karnataka High Court

Shetty Halli Basavegowda Viaya vs K S Kumaraswamy on 25 May, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Shetty Halli Basavegowda Viaya vs K S Kumaraswamy on 25 May, 2009
Author: Subhash B.Adi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25"? DAY OF MAY, 2009
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH F3§;§Vs;13VVi:VV'V   V'

CRIMINAL PETITION K_Q;.u2.,Qi2£_--O9VVV"VVVV_f     

BETWEEN:

Shetty Halli Basavegowda Vijay  
S/:2) Chikkegowda Basavegowda V
Aged about 63 years, 
Residing at No.128, 13th vcmss, 
Mahalakshmipuram, -- V *
Banga1ore--56O O86.   V 
_  " A   'V ....PE'I'I'I'IONER
 Adv.)

K.S.K11Ifl'flVVI'3,SVVEiIEilj'_V
S10 NI.Ve;V{33aI1118.,. V'   M   
No.29,   " 
Govmdaxajanagar, ' Y = "
Bangalore --- 560  

1V VV   ~._  RESPONDENT

-TI_’1iis’v-VC:r1:VVF’Ve§Vf1$iVt)n is filed U/S482 CR.P.C by the advocate
for ‘$;heV’* Petiticé1;e:V” praying that this Hon’bIc Court may be

p1eased._to modiiy the Order dated:31.3.2009 passed at Cfiminal

Appeal N«:z).893/2008 on the file of F.T.C.I0, Bangalore city and

§ – «.f_u’1~tI1er gra.”aL1t’exte1}.sion of fime for further periacl of 90 days and
‘tq»réd’uc¢ the amo-unt to be deposited to the extent of 25%.

petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court

ORBER
This petition is though posted for orders on ofice
objecfion, however, considering the nature of relief sought for,
ofiice objections stand over ruled. Since the request of the
petitioner is only for extension of time, this matter is’4.:o!35:iei2.V’up

for disposal.

2. A mediation was held in respect of a ga” 51} thtéet’ ”

complainant against the accused (i:2etit§oné:r “h_e1*eii::)’

4.3.2008 before the mediator, pee;.e_ionee.1aéd to deposititit»

50% of the ciaim amount to the of before
the 15th A.C.M.M. »:;v:;Q.’1e.1..2oos. Though the

send” Wasvttiiot made. Thereafter, again
the time of that, the deposit was not
made. V. _V L

for the petitioner submits that.

.V;;~etit:io13.er” aimemaes and if time is granted, he

Woljirl amount. Initially he would deposit 25% in one

_ ‘meek arid seother 25% in one month.

” ; Qheconsideiing the request of the petitioner, petitioner has

time to deposit 25% of the claim amount (claimed

ttexrzvitxount ordered) within one week and remam 111′ g 25% withm

another one month thereafter. Failing Which, the learned
Magistrate to proceed accordingly.

It is made clear that, the petitioner is not entitled claim

further extension.

sa,’~» ‘

mp; ~