IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2431/2013 BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Shruthi H.C., W/o. K. Shylesh Raju, Aged about 36 years, Residing at No.918, 14th Main ITI Layout, Mallathahalli, Bengaluru – 560 079.
2. Chandrashekar H.N., S/o. S.V. Narayan, Aged about 64 years, 3. Smt. Shobha, W/o. Chandrashekar H.N., Aged about 54 years, Both are residing at No.A/04, Manthri Paradise, Arekere Gate, B.G. Road, Bengaluru – 560 076. …Petitioners (By Sri. Girigowda C., Advocate) AND:
1. Smt. Sudhamani V., W/o. Ajith Kumar M., Aged about 31 years, Residing at No.19, Behind New Police Quarters, Vinayakanagar, Ramanagar – 571 511.
2. M. Ajith Kumar, S/o Late Mallikarjunaiah, Aged about 33 years, Residing at No.424, T Thimmaiah Road, 8th Main Road, Padmanabhanagar, Bengaluru – 560 070. … Respondents (By Sri. Arun G., Advocate for Sri. M.N. Nehru, Advocate for R1; Sri. N.B. Kumar, Advocate for R2) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 15126/2012 pending on the file of III Additional C.M.M., Bangalore, insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsels for respondents.
Respondent No.1 claiming to be the legal wedded wife of accused No.1-Sri. Ajith kumar, presented a private complaint seeking action against accused No.1 and the petitioners herein for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 494, 420, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The case of respondent No.1/complainant is that during subsistence of her marriage with accused No.1, at the instance of the present petitioners and with their active collusion, accused No.1 entered into a second marriage with Smt.Shruthi/accused No.2 on 24.02.2010.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the marriage between accused No.1 and 2 has been dissolved by decree of divorce dated 20.03.2012. It is contended that since the prior marriage was within the knowledge of accused Nos.1 and 2, essential ingredients of Section 494 of IPC are not attracted. The said contention is a matter to be proved only during trial and the same cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings. As there are allegations and material constituting the ingredients of Section 494 of IPC, I do not find any justifiable reason to quash the proceedings.
As a result, petition is dismissed. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to seek for their discharge before the trial Court on such grounds available under law.
Sd/- JUDGE SV Ct:b