B. C. VARADARAJU vs M. RENUKAPPA Advocate - K.R.NAGARAJA — CRL.RP/1451/2025

Case under None Section none. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 09th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: KAHC010644662025

Filing Number

CRL.RP/1409/2025

Filing Date

24-Sep-2025

Registration No

CRL.RP/1451/2025

Registration Date

25-Sep-2025

Judge

H.p.sandesh

Coram

H.p.sandesh

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CRL.RP ( 114 )

Sub-Category

397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)-U/S 397/-U/S 438 ( 11 )

Judicial Branch

Judicial Section

Decision Date

09-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

None Section none

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.B. C. VARADARAJU

    Adv. M SHASHIDHARA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.M. RENUKAPPA Advocate - K.R.NAGARAJA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Jun-2026

    H.p.sandeshView PDF

    Case Summary: CRL.RP No. 1451 of 2025 The High Court of Karnataka dismissed B.C. Varadaraju's criminal revision petition challenging his 2018 conviction confirmation on two grounds: an inordinate delay of 1,604 days in filing the petition, and his non-compliance with court-ordered fine payment conditions. Justice H.P. Sandesh noted the petitioner had failed to deposit an additional 25% fine amount despite being granted multiple extensions, and rejected his accompanying applications for relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Feb-2026

    Hearing - Interlocutory Appln

    S Vishwajith Shetty

  4. 06-Feb-2026

    Hearing - Interlocutory Appln

    S Vishwajith Shetty

  5. 25-Sep-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 24-Sep-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRL.RP/1451/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRL.RP No. 1451 of 2025 The High Court of Karnataka dismissed B.C. Varadaraju's criminal revision petition challenging his 2018 conviction confirmation on two grounds: an inordinate delay of 1,604 days in filing the petition, and his non-compliance with court-ordered fine payment conditions. Justice H.P. Sandesh noted the petitioner had failed to deposit an additional 25% fine amount despite being granted multiple extensions, and rejected his accompanying applications for relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case