IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2713/2013 BETWEEN 1. SMT. NAGRATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, W/O LATE M.S.JAGANNATHA GUPTA BALAJI STORES, BUS STAND ROAD, MADHUGIRI, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101.
2. SMT.M.J.VEENADEVI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, D/O LATE M.S.JAGANNATHA GUPTA RESIDING AT LINGAIAH COLONY, THERABAL ROAD, NAZRABAD, MYSORE-570 010.
3. SRI.M.J.BALAJI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O LATE M.S.JAGANNATHA GUPTA, BALAJI STORES, BUS STAND ROAD, MADHUGIRI, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI S B MUKKANNAPPA, ADV.) AND SMT. UMA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, W/O S.KRISHNA SETTY, R/O OLD SSK CHOULTRY ROAD, PAVAGADA TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI M V V RAMANA, ADV.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT IN C.C.NO.204/13 AGAINST THE PETRS. WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, PAVAGADA.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioners have sought for quashing of the proceedings initiated against them in CC No.204/2013 before Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Pavagada. The said proceedings are initiated based on the private complaint lodged by the respondent herein. The petitioners are shown as accused nos.4,5 & 6 respectively.
2. The case of the respondent is that, she had married accused no.1 on 22.05.1991 as per Hindu customs and practices. She has begotten three children in the said wedlock. However, during the subsistence of the said marriage, accused no.1 i.e. her husband married accused no.2 and the performance of said marriage was abetted by other accused.
3. In support of these accusations, respondent has let in her sworn statement and has produced as many as 20 documents before the lower court and considering the said materials by order dated 19.4.2013, learned Magistrate has issued summons to the petitioner and other accused persons.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the sworn statement, the complainant has categorically admitted that she came to know the alleged second marriage of accused nos. 1 and 2 in the year 1997 whereas the complaint in question is filed in the year 2012 i.e. more than 17 years after the date of the knowledge. That apart, there are no allegations whatsoever in so far as petitioners are concerned either with regard to their instigation or abetment to the performance of the said marriage except the bald statement as above. It is contended that the said allegations do not amount to an act of abetement under Section 109 of IPC and hence, the prosecution of the petitioners is illegal and abuse of the process of Court.
5. Respondent has argued in support of the charges leveled against the petitioners.
6. Learned Magistrate has passed a considered order which reads as under:
“This private complaint is filed by the complainant alleging that the accused No.1 who is the husband of complainant has taken second marriage with accused No.2 and the other accused have joined their hands in performing second marriage of accused No.1. So the petitioner has given sworn statement before the Court and she has reiterated the complaint averments in the sworn statement. She has also produced Ex.P.1 to P.20 documents wherein it is noticed that she has obtained maintenance order against the accused No.1 by filing C.Mis.No.14/2006 before this Court and in the said order it is observed that 2nd marriage as alleged is not challenged by the respondent. The accused No.2 who is employee in the Prl. Dist. and Sessions Court at Bangalore Rural District is alleged to be the second wife of accused No.1 and whose service register extract shows the name of husband as the accused No.1 and the son of accused No.2 admission extract shows that father of the said son is accused No.1. Under such circumstances it is to be noticed that there are prima-facie materials to proceed against the accused and allegations leveled against the accused are showing the primafacie materials for them. It is also alleged in the complaint that the accused No.1 has tortured ill-treat the complainant demanding dowry. So these materials clearly shows the case put forth by the complainant at this stage. The accused No.3 and 4 are the parents of the accused No.2 alleged to have contracted second marriage of accused No.1 with accused No.2, hence abetted offence. Accused No.5 and 6 are the children of accused No.3 and 4 who have also abated the bigamy and hence there are allegations against them. So all the materials placed before the Court goes to show the prima facie case triable for the offences alleged against the accused. Hence I deem it fit to pass the following.
:ORDER:
Register the case as C.C. for the offences punishable under Sec.494, 498(a), 496, 107 of I.P.C. Issue summons to the accused with complaint copies furnished if P.F. paid, returnable by 21-5-2013.”
7. From the above order, it is evident that prima facie material is produced by the complainant in proof of the offence under Sections 494, 496 and 197 of IPC in so far as accused nos. 1, 2 and 4 are concerned, but, in so far as accused nos. 5 & 6 are concerned, except stating that they being children of accused nos.3 and 4 have abetted the crime no other material is produced in proof of their involvement in the alleged offences. The above allegations even if accepted in its entirety, in my opinion, do not render them liable for prosecution. Hence, the proceedings initiated against accused nos. 5 & 6 for the above offences, in my view, is wholly illegal and needs to be quashed. To that extent, the petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed in-part. Petition filed by accused no. 4. i.e. petitioner no.1- Smt.Nagarathnamma is dismissed. Petition filed by accused nos.5 and 6 i.e. petitioner nos. 2 and 3 herein- is allowed. Proceedings pending on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Pavagada in CC No.204/13 are hereby quashed only in so far as accused nos. 5 and 6 - the petitioners herein namely Smt.M.J.Veenadevi and Sri M.J.Balaji are concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE Sk/- CT-HR