Karnataka High Court
Sri Madhu vs Smt Janaki @ Parvathi on 20 March, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:11510
CRL.P No. 6948 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6948 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MADHU
S/O LATE MADANAYAKA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO.8181, 1ST MAIN,
2ND CROSS,
NAGARAHOLE NAGAR,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
MAHADESWARA NAGARA,
HEROHALLY CROSS,
BENGALURU - 560 091.
2. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI
W/O LATE DURGADAS,
Digitally signed by
VEDAVATHI A K AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka RESIDING AT NO.18,
SWAGATHA SANKALPA,
7TH CROSS,
AMARAJOTHINAGARA,
BEHIND EX-DEPUTY MAYOR,
B.S.PUTTARAJUS HOUSE,
BANGALORE - 560 072.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHRIDHARA K., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:11510
CRL.P No. 6948 of 2019
AND:
SMT. JANAKI @ PARVATHI
WIFE OF MADHU,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.231,
C/O SUNDANDA DEVI,
MANJUNATHA NILAYA,
CHOWDESWARI LAYOUT,
YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. NAGARAJA K R., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF
COGNIZANCE TAKEN U/S.190 OF CR.P.C FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S.494 AND 109 IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONER DATED
03.05.2018 PASSED IN C.C.NO.12100/2018 ON THE FILE OF
THE 44th ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT
BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:11510
CRL.P No. 6948 of 2019
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the criminal proceedings registered against the petitioners in in C.C.No.12100/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 494 and 109 IPC on the file of the 44th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent .
3. The case of the respondent before the Magistrate is that she has filed private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., alleging that she has married to the petitioner No.1/accused No.1 on 9.5.1993 and they are having two children Chethan and Madhuri. Subsequently, she came to know that the accused No.1/her husband is having illicit intimation with one Annapoorna/accused No.2 in the complaint and a child also said to be born out of the marriage by name Karthik. Hence, she has 'Gramina Abuidaya Seva Samste' on 26.6.2003. Subsequently, she has contacted the -4- NC: 2024:KHC:11510 CRL.P No. 6948 of 2019 advocates and filed complaint to the police in the year 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 506 read with 34 of IPC, which is registered as Crime No.81/2012 in C.C.No.3767/2012. Subsequently, the case was ended in acquittal. The petitioner No.1 also said to be filed divorce petition against respondent, which also came to be dismissed. Therefore, later she came to know accused No.1, married the said accused No.2 and had male child in the name of Karthik who was born on 30.11.2014 and she has also obtained the documents from the school authorities, where the accused No.1 and the accused No.2 declared themselves as parents in his school certificate. Thereafter, they filed complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and after the sworn statement, learned Magistrate took the cognizance against the accused persons, where the other accused persons said to be abated the accused No.1 and complaint filed under Section 494 of IPC. which is under challenge.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the marriage of the petitioner No.1, and respondent was already in the year 1993 and in the year 2003 complaint, came to know illicit intimation between the accused No.1 and -5- NC: 2024:KHC:11510 CRL.P No. 6948 of 2019 accused No.2 and she had knowledge and also filed the complaint to the 'Gramina Abuidaya Seva Samste' in the year 2003 itself and FIR also was filed in the year 2012, in the same set of facts and it was ended in acquittal. Thereafter, after 14 years, the private complaint has been filed and even date of marriage was not disclosed and the celebration was not disclosed. There is no averments made against accused No.1, but how they abated accused No.1 in commission of offence. Therefore, the criminal proceedings not sustainable under the law. Hence, prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings.
5. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent objected the petition and contended that though respondent came to know there is illicit intimation between accused Nos.1 and 2, but in the year 2017, she got the documents and photographs showing that the accused No.1 was wandering with accused No.2 along with child Karthik in all the programs and she obtained the documents only in later stage along with the school certificate. Therefore, the delay was caused due to non availability of the documents to prove the case against the accused for 498A of IPC which had ended in acquittal and -6- NC: 2024:KHC:11510 CRL.P No. 6948 of 2019 they are different set of allegations and it is not on bigamy. Therefore, prayed for dismissing the petition.
6. Having heard the arguments and perused the records. On perusal of the same, especially the photographs and school certificate said to be produced by the respondent, where one Karthik was born out of the marriage or intimacy between accused Nos.1 and 2. The child was admitted for 1st standard at 'Sri Vani Vidyadayaini Kendra' and his name is Karthik and initial was given, as of the name of this petitioner which stands as Madhu and was mentioned as Master Karthik M.,. The allegation against other accused is that they have abated the accused No.1 for contacting the 2nd marriage. Ofcourse the matrimonial case filed by the petitioner No.1 was dismissed. The allegation against accused No.1 is that he has contacted 2nd marriage with Annapoorna/accused No.2, she is not filed any petition before this court. Accused No.4, is said to be sister of the accused No.1, is made as an accused, who is said to have abated the accused No.1, the allegation is 109 of IPC. There is no specific allegation against accused No.4, how she has abated and though it is stated in the complaint, the accused persons said to be family members of the -7- NC: 2024:KHC:11510 CRL.P No. 6948 of 2019 accused No.1, that itself is not ground to show they are all performed the marriage of accused with accused No.2, there is no specific allegations how she has abated the accused No.1 in commotion of, in contacting the 2nd marriage. Such being the case, the proceedings against accused No.2 is not sustainable. However, there is material against accused No.1 for having begotten the child along with the accused No.2. He has to take defense though there is some delay in filing the complaint but the offence under Section 494 of IPC is punishable for 7 years. Therefore, section 468 of IPC will not attract for no bar for taking cognizance or no limitation of taking cognizance. Such being the case, the petition filed against the accused No.1 is liable dismissed. Hence, I proceed to passed the following;
ORDER Accordingly, this petition is allowed in part. Petition filed by the petitioner No.1, is hereby dismissed. Petition filed by the petitioner No.2/accused No.4 is hereby allowed.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:11510 CRL.P No. 6948 of 2019 Consequently, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner No.2/accused No.4 in C.C.No.12100/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 494 and 109 IPC on the file of the 44th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE AKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15 CT:SK