Karnataka High Court
M Pradeep And Ors vs State Of Karnataka And Anr on 9 September, 2024
Author: K Natarajan
Bench: K Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6741
CRL.P No. 200282 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200282 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. M. PRADEEP, AGED 40 YEARS,
SON OF M. PRASAD BABU,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT H.NO. 6,
13TH CROSS, ANNAPURNESHWARI LAYOUT,
OPP. ASHA KIRAN SCHOOL,
HORAMAVU ROAD,
(WRONGLY AS HORANHAV ROAD),
R.M. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560043.
2. M. PRASAD BABU
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
SON OF M. SHANKERAIAH,
OCC: RETIRE ENGINEER,
Digitally signed PRESENTLY RESIDING AT H.NO. 6,
by KHAJAAMEEN 13TH CROSS, ANNAPURNESHWARI LAYOUT,
L MALAGHAN
OPP. ASHA KIRAN SCHOOL,
Location: High
Court Of HORAMAVU ROAD,
Karnataka (WRONGLY AS HORANHAV ROAD),
R.M. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560043.
3. LALITHA
WIFE OF M. PRASAD BABU,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT H.NO. 6,
13TH CROSS, ANNAPURNESHWARI LAYOUT,
OPP. ASHA KIRAN SCHOOL,
HORAMAVU ROAD,
(WRONGLY AS HORANHAV ROAD),
R.M. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560043.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6741
CRL.P No. 200282 of 2024
4. M. PRASHANTI
WIFE OF SANJEEVKUMAR VIHARU,
AGED 44 YEARS,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT H.NO. 6,
13TH CROSS, ANNAPURNESHWARI LAYOUT,
OPP. ASHA KIRAN SCHOOL,
HORAMAVU ROAD,
(WRONGLY AS HORANHAV ROAD),
R.M. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560043.
5. PRAVEEN
SON OF M. PRASAD BABU,
AGED 32 YEARS,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT H.NO. 6,
13TH CROSS, ANNAPURNESHWARI LAYOUT,
OPP. ASHA KIRAN SCHOOL,
HORAMAVU ROAD,
(WRONGLY AS HORANHAV ROAD),
R.M. NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560043.
6. SANJEEVKUMAR
SON OF JEEVA RATNAM,
AGED 49 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
RESIDING AT H.NO. 6,
13TH CROSS, ANNAPURNESHWARI LAYOUT,
OPP. ASHA KIRAN SCHOOL,
HORAMAVU ROAD,
(WRONGLY AS HORANHAV ROAD),
R.M. NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560043.
7. NEMTI KANTI ARUNA VIJAYA
WIFE OF N. SUDHEER,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RESIDING AT H.NO. 8-4-33/54,
VALLABHANAGAR STREET,
OLD BOWINPALLY BALNAGAR MANDAL,
R.R. DISTRICT,
TELANGANA STATE-500011.
8. M. VIJAY ANAND
SON OF LATE SHANKERAIAH,
AGED 54 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6741
CRL.P No. 200282 of 2024
RESIDING AT H.NO. 5-21/12,
HITANAGAR, TENALI-522201,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
9. N. VIJAYLAXMI W/O DEVIDRAJ,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT H.NO. 3-96,
KATTAWARAM VILLAGE,
TENALI MANDAL, GUNTOOR DISTRICT,
TELANGANA STATE-522201.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE (PH)
AND SRI. ARJUN REGO, (BY VC) ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY GANDHI GUNJ POLICE STATION,
BIDAR-585403,
REPRESENTED BY
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
2. K. ANUPA
AGED 32 YEARS, WIFE OF PRADEEP,
RESIDENT OF BENGALURU,
NOW AT TDB COLONY,
HALADKHERI, BIDAR-585403.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. MANURE ASHOK KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE-SHEET DATED
12.04.2024 IN C.C.NO.2615/2014 FILED BY THE GANDHI GUNJ
POLICE STATION ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC BIDAR UNDER SECTIONS 495, 420, 323, 504, 506
OF IPC, 1860 AS PER ANNEXURE-H AGAINST THE PETITIONERS
THEREIN, GRANTING SIMULTANEOUSLY TO THE PETITIONERS THEIR
COSTS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6741
CRL.P No. 200282 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN) This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 9 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.2615/2024 arising out of PCR No.136/2022 pending on the file of Prl. JMFC-II, Bidar.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent No.2 has filed a private complaint on 12.08.2022, the same was registered in PCR No.136/2022 and the learned Magistrate referred the complaint to the Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., and the FIR came to be registered in Crime No.123/2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 495, 420 of IPC and -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:6741 CRL.P No. 200282 of 2024 subsequently filed the charge-sheet by adding Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC apart from Section 495 and 420 of IPC, which is under challenge.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the private complaint filed by the respondent No.2 by suppressing all the materials for the offence punishable under Section 495 and 420 of IPC, even though she came to the knowledge of the marriage as stated in the 498-A complaint filed on 04.01.2019. She also filed a Domestic Violence Act case against the petitioners before the Magistrate. The marriage of the 1st petitioner with one Sunita has been already dissolved in the year 2014 itself and he has not suppressed any earlier marriage. He was stated in the marriage profile in the website that he was divorcee and he has not cheated the complainant at any cost and he has not assaulted her in the year 2022. The parties are already litigating from the 2019 itself. Section 498A case is already pending before the 10th Addl. CMM Court. The 1st petitioner already -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:6741 CRL.P No. 200282 of 2024 divorced the earlier wife and later married that will not attract Section 495 and 420 of IPC. Therefore, continuing the criminal proceedings against these petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for quashing the same.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader has seriously objected the petition and contending that the accused assaulted the complainant with hands, abused her in filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences, which also attracts Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC. The police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet for suppressing the previous marriage. Hence, prayed for dismissal of petition.
6. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also seriously objected the petition and contending that the previous marriage with one Sunita has been not disclosed by the accused No.1 to the respondent No.2 and with an intention to cheat her, he has married her, he has given the photograph and with bio-data he has not -7- NC: 2024:KHC-K:6741 CRL.P No. 200282 of 2024 mentioned he has married man or divorcee. Such being the case, his intention to cheat the complainant. Therefore, if at all any defence available, he has to approach the Magistrate and contest the matter. Hence, prayed for dismissal of petition.
7. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for both side and perused the records and on perusal of the records it is not in dispute that the marriage of 1st petitioner with respondent No.2 was held on 05.09.2015 and they having a child. The dispute arose between the parties when the respondent said to be seen the earlier marriage videograph of the 1st petitioner with one Sunita and on enquiry there was quarrel between them and he started harassing her. Therefore, she has approached the police at Bangalore Rammurthy Nagar police and filed a complaint on 04.01.2019 where the FIR in Crime No.5/2019 was registered against the petitioner and his family members for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 -8- NC: 2024:KHC-K:6741 CRL.P No. 200282 of 2024 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is also an admitted fact that respondent No.2 also filed a complaint before the Magistrate under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act on 14.03.2019 by claiming maintenance and other relief, which is also pending before the MMTC-I, Bangalore. Subsequently, in the year 2022, the complainant filed this private complaint and got it referred to the police for the offenses especially under Section 495 and 420 of IPC.
8. It is seriously contended by the respondent counsel that he has suppressed the earlier marriage and cheated the complainant by marrying the complainant. Whereas the petitioners' counsel argued the first marriage is not subsisting, therefore, there is no offence punishable under Section 495 of IPC arises.
9. For the convenience, it is necessary to refer the Section 495 of IPC, which is hereunder:
"495. Same offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted.-- Whoever commits the offence defined in -9- NC: 2024:KHC-K:6741 CRL.P No. 200282 of 2024 the last preceding section having concealed from the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted, the fact of the former marriage, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
10. The very reading of Section 495 of IPC, which starts with the reference of Section 494 of IPC, where having concealing the previous marriage, it should be married, subsequent marriage is contracted, the fact of former marriage was subsisting. It is also necessary for this Court to refer Section 494 of IPC, which is 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
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6741 CRL.P No. 200282 of 2024 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."
11. On plain reading of Section 494 of IPC, the spouses shall be punishable for suppressing the first marriage and marrying the another person it attracts bigamy the Section 494 of IPC is continuing provisions of Section 495 of IPC, where this present marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the respondent No.2 shall be subsequent marriage. Admittedly it is a subsequent marriage and merely he has not mentioned his previous marriage, whether it attracts Section 495 of IPC. In this
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6741 CRL.P No. 200282 of 2024 regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners produced the copy of the divorce decree obtained by the 1st petitioner with one Sunita Peddanna. It reveals the Family Court, Ranga Reddy district, Hydrabad, granted decree of divorce on mutual consent in O.P.No.726/2014 on 06.12.2014 itself. After the obtaining the divorce by the 1st petitioner, he has married the respondent No.2. Therefore, the earlier marriage of the 1st petitioner with Sunita Peddanna is not subsisting while marrying the respondent No.2 by the petitioner in order to attract Section 495 of IPC. Merely not mentioning or suppressing the earlier marriage, that itself is not a ground to say he has suppressed the earlier marriage and married the respondent No.2 in order to cheat her. It is not the case that he has cheated her by marrying another girl and that marriage is still subsisting. When the earlier marriage is not subsisting, the question of suppressing or marrying second time cannot be considered as a bigamy and suppressing the earlier marriage or marrying another
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6741 CRL.P No. 200282 of 2024 woman in order to attract Section 495 of IPC, which does not arises.
12. When the respondent No.2 herself stated in the 498-A IPC case filed on 04.01.2019 that she has came to know about the marriage and divorce made by him against the said Sunita and subsequently she also filed the domestic violence case against the petitioners in Bangalore, which is also pending. Both 498A of IPC case and D.V.Act case is pending against the petitioners in the Bangalore Court and subsequently in 2022, the present complaint filed and referred to the police. Even on reference, the learned Magistrate not applied his mind, simply received the complaint and referred to the police for registering the FIR as per reference under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The very para-8, 9 and 10 of the complaint itself clearly reveals that there was earlier marriage, DV Act case pending, 498-A case also pending. Such being the case, the question of petitioner going and assaulting the respondent No.2 in March 2022 does not
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6741 CRL.P No. 200282 of 2024 arise as they are already litigating in the Court for last three years prior to filing of this present complaint.
13. Therefore I am of the view, the provisions of Section 495 or 420 of IPC does not arise and which does not attract against the petitioners and they are already litigating before the Court for last three years. Therefore, question of going, assaulting, abusing and threatening the complainant by the accused persons in 2022 also does not arise and there is no cause of action made in the complaint that for filing complaint in 2022 by filing PCR for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC. Therefore, I am of the view, the conducting proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.
14. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6741 CRL.P No. 200282 of 2024 The criminal proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.2615/2024 arising out of Crime No.123/2022 (PCR No.136/2022) is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(K NATARAJAN) JUDGE SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 20 CT:SI