IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA Crl.P. No. 6355/2016 BETWEEN :
Sri. Punitha C.S. W/o. Kumar @ Satish Aged about 31 years R/a. Chagachagere Village Gandsi Hobli, Arshikere Taluk Hassan Dist. – 573 164. … PETITIONER (By Sri B. Roopesha, Adv.) AND :
1. State by Periyapatna Police Station Mysore Dist. 571 107 Rep. by SPP.
2. Smt. Manasa P. W/o. Sathish G.J. Aged about 25 years R/o. No. 30, 1st Floor TAPCMS Road Periyapatna Town Mysore Dist. 571 107. … RESPONDENTS (By Sri. Nasrulla Khan, HCGP, for R-1 R-2 served and unrepresented) ---
This Crl.P. is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the registration of the FIR, complaint dated 02.05.2016 in Cr.No. 82/2016 registered by 1st respondent police against the petitioner vide Annexures B and C and etc.
This Crl.P. coming on for Admission this day, the Court passed the following;
O R D E R This petition is filed by accused No. 2 against whom charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable under Section 494 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 114 IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is served and unrepresented.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made in the charge sheet do not attract the ingredients of the offences under Section 494 or 114 IPC. The prosecution of petitioner for the alleged offence is violative of Section 198 of Cr.P.C. inasmuch as proceedings were initiated based on the police report and not on the complaint as mandated under the provisions of IPC.
4. Without going into the above contention, in my view, the petition deserves to be allowed on the bare perusal of the charge sheet. I have gone through the charge sheet. There is no allegation whatsoever in the charge sheet attracting the offence under Section 494 IPC against the present petitioner. Except an allegation that at the instance of the petitioner herein, accused No. 1 was ill-treating and harassing complainant/respondent No. 2 by threatening that he will contract marriage with accused No. 2, there is no material to show that accused No. 1 has the fact contracted marriage with petitioner/accused No. 2 so as to make out an offence under Section 494 IPC. Threat of contracting second marriage does not fall within the mischief of Section 494 IPC.
5. Section 494 IPC reads as under :
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 of 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 also be liable to fine.
Exception.- This section does not extend to any person whose marriage with such husband or wife has been declared void by a Court of competent jurisdiction.
nor to any person who contracts a marriage during the life of a former husband or wife, if such husband or wife, at the time of the subsequent marriage, shall have been continually absent from such person for the space of seven years, and shall not have been heard of by such person as being alive within that time provided the person contracting such subsequent marriage shall, before such marriage takes place, inform the person with whom such marriage is contracted of the real state of facts so far as the same are within his or her knowledge.
6. There is nothing on record to show that accused Nos. 1 and 2 have entered into any marriage during the subsistence of marriage between accused No.1 and the complainant. Further, though charge sheet is filed for the offence under Section 114 of IPC, the charge sheet does not contain any material in support of this charge. Under such circumstances, the prosecution of the petitioner for the above offences is wholly illegal and abuse of process of Court.
7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No. 428/2016 on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC Court at Periyapatna, is quashed insofar as the petitioner/accused No. 2 is concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE.
LRS.