IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA Crl.P. No. 8940/2016 BETWEEN :
Sri. T. Manjanna S/o. Thimmappa Aged about 35 years Occ. P.S.I.
Hanagal Police Station Hanagal Residing near Police Station Hanagal Town Haveri District – 581 104. … PETITIONER (By Sri. M.T. Nanaiah, Sr. Adv.) AND :
1. State of Karnataka by Jagalur Police Station Jagalur – 577 528 Davangere.
2. Smt. Swapna M W/o. T. Manjanna Aged about 26 years R/a. Door No. 806/4 Saraswathi Nagar B Block Davanagere Town Davanagere – 577 005. … RESPONDENTS (By Sri. I.S. Pramod Chandra, SPP-II for R-1 Sri. M.S. Prashanth, Adv, for R-2) ---
This Crl.P. is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the FIR in Cr. No. 162/2016 for the offences punishable under Section 494 of IPC pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Jagalur, Davanagere District and etc.
This Crl.P. coming on for Admission this day, the Court passed the following;
O R D E R Petitioner has sought to quash the FIR registered against him in crime No. 162/2016 under Section 494 IPC.
2. Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 and learned SPP-II appearing for respondent No. 1.
3. Respondent No. 2 is the legally wedded wife of petitioner. Matrimonial proceedings are pending between them for dissolution of their marriage in M.C. No. 124/2014 under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act. During the pendency of this petition, respondent No. 2 – lodged a report alleging that during the subsistence of her marriage petitioner herein has contracted a second marriage. In the complaint she has stated that petitioner himself has forwarded the photographs of another lady which reveals that there was a second marriage.
4. On the basis of the above allegations, in my view, no proceedings can be instituted under Section 494 of IPC. First and foremost there is no averment whatsoever in the complaint that the petitioner herein has contracted a second marriage. Forwarding the photographs of a lady does not amount to proof of marriage in order to constitute an offence under Section 494 of IPC. In order to make out an offence under Section 494 IPC the complaint should prima facie disclose that during the subsistence of the marriage, the husband or wife has entered into another marriage. There are no such averments nor any supporting material in proof of this basic fact constituting an offence under Section 494 IPC. Hence, in my view, prosecution of the petitioner on the basis of above allegations is wholly illegal and is an abuse of process of Court. The fact that matrimonial proceedings are pending before the Court for dissolution of marriage which are initiated at the instance of the petitioner herein suggests that the complaint has been filed only to create a ground for the petitioner to challenge the said proceedings before the matrimonial Court. Nevertheless respondent having failed to make out a case for prosecution of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 494 of IPC the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.
5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings arising out of Crime No. 162/2016 for the offences punishable under Section 494 of IPC pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Jagalur, Davanagere District are quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE.
LRS.