Karnataka High Court
Manjunath M vs Smt M S Kamalamma on 15 April, 2013
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5006 OF 2009
Between:
1. Mr. Manjunath M
S/o Late Muniyappa
Aged about 32 years
2. Smt. Thimmakka
W/o Late Muniyappa
Aged about 58 years
3. Mr. Krishnappa
S/o Late Venkateshappa
Aged about 35 years
4. Smt. Gayathri
W/o Krishnappa
Aged about 28 years
Appellants 1 to 4 are
R/at No.105, 3rd Main Road
3rd Cross, Pipeline
R.P.C. Layout, Bangalore
5. Smt.Chandramma
W/o Late Anjanappa
Aged about 55 years
R/at Nasigunte Hosur
Muddenahalli
-2-
Gramapanchayath
Chikkabalapur Taluk ... Petitioners
(By Shri Vishnu Hegde, Advocate)
And:
Smt. M.S.Kamalamma
W/o V. Raju
Aged about 34 years
R/at Maragondanahalli
Nelamangala Taluk
Bangalore Rural Duistrict ... Respondent
(By Shri A.Hanumanthappa, Advocate)
*****
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C praying to quash/set aside the C.C.No.464/2009 in PCR
No.10/2009 filed on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and
JMFC, Nelamangala by quashing the impugned order dated
15.4.2009 i.e. Annexure-A (i.e. order sheet is produced)
This Petition coming on for Hearing this day, the Court
made the following:-
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.
-3-
2. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is the son of petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.3 is brother-in-law of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.4 is the sister of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.5 is not related at all, to petitioners 1 to 4.
3. It is stated that petitioners 3 and 4 are residing separately and have nothing to do with the affairs of petitioner No.1. It is claimed that the respondent -complainant Kamalamma has stated that her sister Renukamma is married to petitioner No.1 and that the petitioners have committed offences punishable under Sections 494, 107, 120B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC", for brevity) and on the basis of the said wild allegations, the Trial Court had taken cognizance and had issued summons to the petitioners herein as well as one other, all of whom are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 7. The petitioners and the other, have appeared before the court below and have obtained bail. Thereafter, the case is numbered as C.C.No.464/2009.
-4-
4. It is alleged in the complaint lodged by the complainant - Kamalamma that the petitioner had married Renukamma on 26.3.2003 at Bangalore and at the time of wedding, petitioner No.1 herein had received a sum of Rs.1 lakh and 20 gms. of gold ornaments as dowry, which the petitioners vehemently denied and it is further stated that after their marriage petitioner No.1 and Renukamma set up matrimonial home and lived together for about 8 months. Petitioner No.1 had informed Renukamma that he wanted to establish a computer centre and he required a capital of Rs.1 lakh and therefore, demanded her to get further dowry from her maternal home and she had paid him a further sum of Rs.50,000/-. But, the petitioner was not satisfied with the same and he demanded further amounts.
5. It is claimed that Renukamma was pregnant with a child and had gone to her mother's home for delivery and even at that point of time, petitioner No.1 continued to make demands telephonically for more dowry. Renukamma delivered a male child on 1.4.2004. The petitioner had ignored Renukamma -5- after she went for her confinement and delivery. Though Renukamma tried her best to reunite with petitioner No.1, he was not inclined to entertain her and therefore, she was driven to file a case against the petitioner, insofar as his demands for dowry are concerned.
6. It was further alleged that inspite of a subsisting marriage between petitioner No.1 and Renukamma, petitioner No.1 had contracted a second marriage with the daughter of accused No.6 and they had got married at Dharmastala and that they have set up home and the second wife has also delivered a female child; and that other petitioners have abetted the commission of the offence. It is further alleged that Renukamma was subjected to cruelty in the hands of petitioner No.1 at the instigation of his sister and others in the family. Renukamma in that regard had filed a case in Criminal Misc. No.273/2005 against petitioner No.1 for grant of maintenance before the I Additional Family Court, Bangalore and the same has been dismissed. Thereafter, she has filed one more criminal case before the XI ACMM, -6- Bangalore along with her minor child against petitioner No.1 in Criminal Misc. No.186/2008, in which maintenance was granted at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month, which petitioner No.1 is said to be paying. She has also filed yet another complaint in PCR No.15105/2006, in respect of the same offence alleged and yet another criminal case in C.C.No.464/2009 on the file of JMFC, Nelamangala. Petitioner No.1 in turn has filed a petition for divorce, since he has no other option, in M.C.No.3317/2008, which is pending consideration before the Family Court, Bangalore.
7. In view of the several cases that are filed including the one more Criminal Case No.365/2005 for an offence punishable under Section 198A of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which is registered as case No. C.C.25350/2005, before the court below, apart from C.C.No.464/2009 before the JMFC, Nelamangala and the present case sought to be lodged by the respondent seeking -7- relief to her sister is sought to be quashed in the present petition.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioner No.1 and Renukamma were married at Bangalore and they had set up matrimonial home and lived together at Bangalore before their separation and since it is alleged that petitioner No.1 has contracted a second marriage at Dharmastala and living along with his second wife at Bangalore, the Court which would have jurisdiction is the court within whose jurisdiction, offence has been committed. If it is alleged that petitioner No.1 has committed an offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC, Bigami, the offence would purportedly be committed at Bangalore and therefore, the complainant seeking to lodge a complaint before the jurisdictional court at Nelamangala is bad in law and court could not have taken cognizance on such a complaint. -8-
9. Secondly, there was no impediment for his wife Renukamma to lodge a complaint. The complaint sought to be filed through a proxy though permissible in law, would necessarily be for a good reason and there is no such indication in the complaint and when it is on record that Renukamma had in the first instance filed her complaint before the Bangalore court it is evident that she has no such incapacity in appearing before the Court at Bangalore and hence, the complainant seeking relief before Nelamangala Court on the purported cause of action having been arisen at Bangalore, is bad in law. Renumakka who is inclined to file serial cases against the petitioner, the present complaint is one more in the series, merely to harass and cause hardship to the petitioner and is broad mala fide, since the very allegation of second marriage is false on the face of the fact that it is filed before the court which has no jurisdiction. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the proceedings be quashed.
-9-
10. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that the complainant is blood relative of Renukamma and very reading of Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does enable a person related, such as the complainant to file a case for an offence punishable under Section 494 against the husband. There is no impediment in the complainant having been approached the court below. Secondly, it is the case of the complainant that petitioner No.1 has contracted a marriage at Dharmastala, but he has set up his matrimonial home at Nelamangala and resided with her second wife there and in that background there is no material forthcoming to indicate that the petitioner had contracted a second marriage at Dharmastala and residing with his second wife at Nelamganala.
11. Having regard to the large number of criminal cases that have been lodged by the wife - Renukamma, the present complaint even if maintainable at the instance of the sister of Renukamma, the fact that there was no material available to
- 10 -
indicate that there was a second marriage and that the Nelamangala Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, the proceedings initiated are bad in law. Accordingly, the proceedings initiated before the court below are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE AHB