Karnataka High Court
Shantalingappa And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 18 November, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200717/2018
BETWEEN:
1. SHANTALINGAPPA
S/O SIDRAM BIRADAR
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O DHULKHED VILLAGE
TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT BEHIND
TV STATION BACK SIDE, RAMAN NAGAR
KALABURAGI-585102
2. SIDRAM S/O PARASHURAM BIRADAR
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER
R/O DHULKHED VILLAGE, TQ. INDI
DIST. VIJAYAPURA
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT BEHIND
TV STATION BACK SIDE, RAMAN NAGAR
KALABURAGI-585102
3. SMT. KAMALABAI W/O SIDRAM BIRADAR
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O DHULKHED VILLAGE, TQ. INDI
DIST. VIJAYAPURA, PRESENTLY RESIDING
AT BEHIND TV STATION BACK SIDE
RAMAN NAGAR, KALABURAGI-585102
4. SMT. NEELAWWA W/O VIRUPAX AMBIGER
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O NAVA NAGAR, BAGALKOT
TQ. & DIST. BAGALKOT-587102
5. SURESH S/O SIDRAM BIRADAR
2
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
R/O DHULKHED VILLAGE, TQ. INDI
DIST. VIJAYAPURA
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
BEHIND TV STATION BACK SIDE
GANGA NAGAR, KALABURAGI-585102
6. KAMAGOND S/O PARASHRUAM BIRADAR
AGE: 53 YEARS
OCC: GOVERNMENT SERVICE
R/O SHOLAPUR
MAHARASHTRA-413001
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI R.S.LAGALI &
SRI SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE PSI.,
JALA NAGAR P.S., VIJAYAPURA
REPRESENTED BY THE
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH-585102
2. SMT. SHASHIKALA @ GAYATRI
W/O SHANTALINGA BIRADAR
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O JALA NAGAR, VIJAYAPURA-586102
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP FOR R1;
R2-SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.04.2018
PASSED BY III-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM,
VIJAYAPURA IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.879/2015 (JALA NAGAR
POLICE STATION CRIME NO.73/2014) AND THEREBY ALLOW
THE DISCHARGE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS
UNDER SECTION 239 OF CR.P.C., CONSEQUENTIALLY
3
DISCHARGE THE PETITIONERS OF CHARGES UNDER SECTIONS
498A, 420 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State.
2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying this Court to set aside the order dated 07.04.2018 passed by III-Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Vijayapura, in Criminal Case No.879/2015 and thereby allow the application filed by the petitioners under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.
3. Factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2/complainant had lodged complaint with the police stating that her marriage with petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 03.01.2013. The petitioners have suppressed the fact that petitioner No.1/accused No.1 4 already married with another woman and they have cheated the complainant. Apart from that, it is also alleged that after marriage also, she was subjected to cruelty and they demanded additional dowry. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case, investigated the matter and filed chargesheet. The petitioners herein filed application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., before the trial Court seeking for an order of discharge on the ground that a false case has been registered and also contended that the Court is not having jurisdiction. The Trial Court having considered the contents of the application comes to the conclusion that the Court is having jurisdiction since the marriage was solemnized at Vijayapur and the petitioners have suppressed the fact of first marriage of accused No.1 and cheated the complainant and allegations made in the complaint as well as in the chargesheet prima facie discloses committing of offences and rejected the application. Hence, the present petition is filed under 5 Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the discharge application.
4. The main grounds urged in the petition is that the trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the discharge application. If the records of the prosecution are considered, on the face of it, no offence under Section 498-A and 420 of IPC is made out and only omnibus allegations are made. The learned counsel also submits that against accused No.4 also no allegations are made and hence, it requires interference of this Court.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1- State would submit that the accused persons have contended that the very initiation or proceedings against them is bad in law for want of jurisdiction. The same has been considered by the trial Court taking note of the fact 6 that marriage was held in Vijayapur. He also submits that offence alleged against accused No.6 is under Section 420 of IPC and allegations made against accused Nos.1 to 5 are invoking offence under Section 498(A) of IPC.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1- State and on perusal of the contents of the complaint dated 10.08.2014, specific allegation is that the petitioners have suppressed the fact that accused No.1 was already got married and cheated the complainant by performing her marriage with accused No.1 on 03.01.2013. It is also alleged that the petitioners subjected her to both physical and mental cruelty. The police have investigated the matter and filed charge sheet. While filing charge sheet, the police have relied upon the statement of witnesses CWs.1 to 9 and out of 7 that, CW.1 is the complainant, CWs.4 to 9 speaks about concealing of earlier marriage of accused No1. When the specific allegation is made against the accused persons that they have concealed the earlier marriage and again performed marriage of accused No.1 with the complainant, the same has to be tested in the trial. While invoking Section 239 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners have to make out a case for discharge. When specific allegations are made that they have cheated the complainant and performed the second marriage of accused No.1 suppressing earlier marriage of accused No.1, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial Court committed an error in dismissing the application for discharge cannot be accepted.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that there is no material against accused No.6 who is petitioner No.6. A perusal of the 8 complaint and also charge sheet would indicate that allegation is made against accused No.6 that he also cheated the complainant knowingfully well that accused No.1 had already married the other woman and the same was suppressed and performed the marriage. When such allegations are made, it is not a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the order rejecting the discharge application.
8. In view of the observations made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is dismissed Sd/-
JUDGE NB*