IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4200/2015 BETWEEN:
1.SMT SHUBHA S RAO D/O SRIPADA RAO, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 2.SRI.H.R. SRIPADA RAO S/O LATE RAJA RAO, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 3.SMT.SHYLA SRIPADA RAO W/O SRIPADA RAO, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 4.SRI.B.S. SANDEEP BHARDWAJ S/O SRIPADA RAO, AGED ABUT 30 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO.194/A, 8TH CROSS,BENDRENAGARA, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 070.
(BY SRI. P B RAJU, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI M LOKESH, ... PETITIONERS S/O SRI MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.956, MUNISHAMAPPA COMPOUND MOODALAPALYA, NAGARBHAVI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 072.
.. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE - ABSENT) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.10791/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE AND DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING;
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for petitioner.
Respondent’s counsel is absent.
2. Petitioner has sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.10791/2013 pending on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections. 420, 494, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. The outline facts necessary for disposal of the petition are that petitioner No.1 was earlier married to one Nagabhushan on 3/09/2004. Their marriage was dissolved by a decree under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act by order dated 25/10/2008 in M.C.No.2030/2008, on the file of the Family Court at Bengaluru. During subsistence of the said marriage, petitioner No.1 and respondent herein contracted a marriage as per Hindu rites and customs on 19/10/2008. In the said wedlock, a child was born to them in the year 2010. That being the case, respondent herein filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., seeking action against the petitioner for offences the punishable under Sections. 120(B), 420, 494 read with Section 34 of IPC. In the said complaint, respondent No.1 has specifically averred that at the time of contracting the marriage, petitioner No.1/accused No.1 was already married to one Nagabhushan and their marriage was not dissolved and therefore, she is guilty of bigamy and cheating, so the alleged marriage of the petitioner No.1 with respondent is not a valid marriage in the eye of law. In order to attract the provisions of Section 494 of the IPC, the marriage should have been taken during the subsistence of the earlier marriage. Section 494 reads as follows;
494. Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife – Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason if its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall be liable to fine.
5. Since the marriage contracted between the petitioner and respondent is void in law, in my view, the provisions of Section 494 of IPC and consequently Section. 420 of IPC do not apply to the facts of the case. If the second marriage is not valid according to law applicable to the parties, no question of its being void by reason of its taking place during the lifetime of the wife or the husband of the person arises; consequently, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.10791/2013, on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, are hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE Msu