Karnataka High Court
Sri M K Siddalingegowda vs State By Aldur Police on 9 October, 2018
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3657 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. M.K. Siddalinge Gowda,
S/o. Late Kari Gowda,
Aged about 66 years.
2. Sanju @ Sanjay,
S/o. M.K. Siddalinge Gowda,
Aged about 37 years.
3. Santosh
S/o. M.K. Siddalinge Gowda,
Aged about 33 years.
4. Smt. Nagarathnamma,
W/o. M.K. Siddalinge Gowda,
Aged about 57 years.
All are R/at Door No.1376,
2nd Main, 5th Cross,
Krishnamurthypuram,
Near Ballal Circle,
Mysuru-570 057. ...Petitioners
(By Sri. T.A. Karumbaiah, Advocate)
AND:
1. State by Aldur Police,
Crl.P.No.3657/2012
2
Represented by its Aldur Police Inspector,
Aldur, Chikkamagaluru Dist.
2. Smt. D.M. Divya
W/o. Sanju @ Sanjay,
D/o. Manjunatha Gowda,
Aged about 27 years,
R/at Chikkahalla Village,
Aldur Village,
Chikkamagaluru Taluk & District. ...Respondents
(By Sri. Nasrulla Khan, HCGP for R-1;
Sri. Prakash M.H & I.S. Pramod Chandra, Advocates for R2)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C praying to quash the entire proceedings in
Cr.No.26/2012 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC,
Chikkamagaluru.
This Petition coming on for Final Hearing, this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
The present respondent No.2 had filed a private complaint against the present petitioners in the Court of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court' for the sake of brevity) under Section 200 of the Crl.P.No.3657/2012 3 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.' for the sake of brevity).
2. The summary of the said complaint is that petitioner No.2 herein, Sri. Sanju @ Sanjay, who is accused No.1 in the said private complaint, joined by the other accused/petitioners, on 29.05.2009, offered to solemnize the marriage of present petitioner No.2 with the present respondent No.2. Accordingly, their marriage took place in Sri. Ganapathi Temple at Mudigere Town, on the very same day i.e., on 29.05.2009. There was no cohabitation between the spouses and the marital relationship between them was also not consummated. It is during the said period, the complainant came to know that the present petitioner No.2 i.e.,her husband had earlier undergone two marriages with two different ladies, one among whom is Smt. Veena Priyadarshini of Chandagal, K.R. Nagara Crl.P.No.3657/2012 4 Taluk. Suppressing his earlier marriages, all the accused made her to marry petitioner No.2 on 29.05.2009. Thus, she has alleged that it was only with an intention to deceive her, all the accused joined together, have made her to marry petitioner No.2 on 29.05.2009. When she questioned about the same, after she coming to know about the earlier two marriages of petitioner No.2, she was put to life threat by the accused. Thus, she had lodged a complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code against the accused (petitioner No.2).
3. The petitioners in their contention in this petition as well the learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument submitted that it is unbelievable as to how come a girl marries petitioner No.2 a stranger on the very same day when she came to know about him. Crl.P.No.3657/2012 5 It is further contended by the petitioners that there is delay of nearly three years from the date of marriage to the presentation of the complaint to the Court below, as such, the complaint is a false complaint and has been filed only to harass the petitioners.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in his argument submitted that the marriage of respondent No.2 with petitioner No.2 is not in dispute, since the very same marriage has been sought to be annulled in a petition filed by the present respondent No.2 in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru in M.C.No.51/2013 (old No.129/2011), which petition came to be allowed on 31.10.2013. He further submitted that it is only subsequent to the marriage, the complainant came to know about the previous two marriages of petitioner No.2, which has Crl.P.No.3657/2012 6 been detailed in her complaint itself. He also contended that the marriage of respondent No.2 with petitioner No.2 had also taken place in violation of the interim order of injunction operating against present petitioner No.2 in a original suit i.e., O.S.No.32/2006 filed by the first wife, Smt. Veena Priyadarshini against the present petitioner No.2 in the Family Court at Msyuru. It is also his contention that the Investigating Agency have already completed their investigation and have filed the charge sheet. A copy of the said charge sheet in the matter has been filed by none else than the present petitioners in this matter.
5. The complaint filed by respondent No.2 has made a specific allegation about petitioner No.2 marrying the complainant (respondent No.2) on 25.09.2009 in a temple at Mudigere Town. She has alleged that the said marriage was induced and Crl.P.No.3657/2012 7 organized by the other petitioners, who were in connivance with petitioner No.2. The complainant further states that it is only subsequent to the marriage which remained unconsummated, she came to know about the earlier two marriages which the present petitioner No.2 had undergone. The complainant has also stated that the first marriage was with one Smt. Veena Priyadarshini of Chandgal, K.R. Nagara Taluk. She has stated that the name of the second wife of petitioner No.2 is not known to her. Thus, according to the complainant it is during the subsistence of the earlier marriage, the present petitioner No.2 has married present respondent No.2.
6. A copy of the judgment in M.C.No.51/2013 (Old No.129/2011) produced before this Court go to show that the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru in the said case has observed that the Crl.P.No.3657/2012 8 present petitioner No.2 having suppressed his earlier marriage with Smt. Veena Priyadarshini, has married present respondent No.2. Learned Judge has further proceeded to observe that the said Smt. Veena Priyadarshini had instituted a suit against present petitioner No.2, defendant in O.S.No.32/2006 for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the present petitioner No.2 (defendant No.2 therein) from contracting the second marriage.
7. However, violating the interim order of temporary injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff therein, the present petitioner No.2 (defendant therein) has contracted marriage with the present respondent No.2. With the said observation, the Principal Judge, Family Court at Chikkamagaluru proceeded to decree the petition by observing the marriage entered into between the present petitioner No.2 and present Crl.P.No.3657/2012 9 respondent No.2 on 29.02.2009 is null & void. Though it is the contention of the petitioners herein that the said judgment passed in M.C.No.51/2013 has been challenged by the present petitioner No.2 before this Court in MFA No.7426/2014, but the undisputed fact remains that the marriage of the present respondent No.2 with the present petitioner No.2 has taken place during the subsistence of marriage of present petitioner No.2 with one Smt. Veena Priyadarshini.
8. Even according to the petitioners, there was an interim order restraining the present petitioner No.2 from undergoing second marriage, in the original suit filed by the said Smt. Veena Priyadarshini in O.S.No.32/2006. Even according to the petitioners, the marriage between the present petitioner No.2 and said Smt. Veena Priyadarshini came to be dissolved under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act in Crl.P.No.3657/2012 10 M.C.No.527/2013 only on 16.02.2015, as such, it is clear that as on the date of marriage of petitioner No.2 with respondent No.2, which was on 29.05.2009 and also as on the date of the present respondent No.2 filing the complaint which is on 23.01.2012, the marriage between the present petitioner No.2 with said Smt. Veena Priyadarshini was in existence and in force. Therefore, it is alleging the said marriage and the alleged one more marriage by the very same petitioner No.2 with another lady, the present respondent No.2, has filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., which has now culminated into the complainant-respondent No.1-Police filing charge sheet against the petitioners.
9. In the said circumstances of the case, merely on the alleged ground of delay, the criminal proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 in the trial Court cannot be set aside. Since the investigation has already been Crl.P.No.3657/2012 11 completed and the Investigating Officer claims to have collected the materials, which prima facie proves to be sufficient to proceed further by the Court below in the matter, I am of the view that the petitioners have not made out grounds for quashing of criminal proceedings.
Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
In view of disposal of the main matter,
I.A.No.2/2015 does not survive for consideration.
Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BMC