Karnataka High Court
Smt Padmashree Alias Sangeeta W/O ... vs Smt. Sunanda W/O Adarsh Alias ... on 5 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9296
CRL.P No. 101812 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 101814 of 2023, CRL.P No.
101828 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101812 OF 2023
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101814 OF 2023
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101828 OF 2023
IN CRL.P.NO.101812/2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHOBA W/O. JINNAPPA MUGHLKOD
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KANAKIKODITOTA, KABBUR,
TALUK: CHIKKODI,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-590 001.
2. SRI. SAMMED S/O. JINNAPPA MUGHALKOD
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE WORK
R/O. KANAKIKODITOTA, KABBUR,
TALUK: CHIKKODI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-590001.
3. SRI. PAYAPPA S/O. KALLAPPA JAKKANNAVAR
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
Digitally
signed by R/O. BALEKUNDRI K. H. BELAGAVI,
MANJANNA
E TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-590 001.
Location: ...PETITIONERS
HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
SMT. SUNANDA W/O. ADARSH @ VRASHABHANATH
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
R/O. C/O. BABU KADAPPA, KURANI LIG-120,
ASHOK NAGAR, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAM P. GHORPADE, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.05.2023 PASSED
BY THE 6TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9296
CRL.P No. 101812 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 101814 of 2023, CRL.P No.
101828 of 2023
BELAGAVI IN CRL. RVN.119/2021 TO THE EXTENT OF REJECTING
THE REVISION IN RESPECT OF IN SO FAR AS ACCUSED NO.5 AND 6
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 494 READ WITH 34 READ
WITH 114 OF IPC AND ALSO 506 OF IPC IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED
NO.8, CONSEQUENTLY TO QUASH ALL PROCEEDING IN CC
NO.33/2021 PASSED BY THE JMFC-III COURT BELAGAVI AND ETC.
IN CRL.P.NO.101814/2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. PADMASHREE @ SANGEETA
W/O. PAYAPPA JAKKANNAVAR
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BALAKUNDRIKHURD-590001,
TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SMT. SUREKHA W/O. JINNAPPA MUGALKHOD,
(AFTER MARRIAGE SMT. SUREKHA
W/O. AJIT HOLI, AGE: 31 YEARS,
OCC. PRIVATE WORK,
R/O. KANAKIKODITOTA, KABBUR
TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. SUNANDA W/O. ADARSH @ VRASHABHANATH
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
R/O. C/O. BABU KADAPPA, KURANI LIG-120,
ASHOK NAGAR-590001, TQ AND DIST:BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAM P. GHORPADE, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.05.2023 PASSED
BY THE 6TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BELAGAVI IN CRL. RVN.10/2022 TO THE EXTENT OF REJECTING THE
REVISION IN RESPECT OF OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
494 READ WITH 34 READ WITH 114 OF IPC AND CONSEQUENTLY TO
QUASH ALL PROCEEDING IN CC NO.33/2021 PASSED BY THE JMFC-
III COURT BELAGAVI AND ETC.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9296
CRL.P No. 101812 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 101814 of 2023, CRL.P No.
101828 of 2023
IN CRL.P.NO.101828/2023
BETWEEN:
1. ADARSH @ VRASHABHANATH
S/O. ANANT NEMANNAVAR,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE,
R/O. H/NO.1319, TILAK CHOWK,
BELAGAVI-590001.
2. ANANT S/O. ANNAPPA NEMANNAVAR
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE,
R/O. H/NO.1319, TILAK CHOWK,
BELAGAVI-590001.
3. ANANTAMANI W/O. ANANT NEMANNAVAR
AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE
R/O. H/NO.1319, TILAK CHOWK,
BELAGAVI-590001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ABHINANDAN M. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SUNANDA W/O. ADARSH @ VRASHABHANATH
NEMANNAVAR, AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC. BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK,
BELAGAVI, R/O. C/O. BABU KADAPPA
KURANI LIG-120, ASHOK NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590016.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAM P. GHORPADE, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
PETITONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 IN C.C. NO.33/2021 ARISING
OUT OF PC.NO.27/2019, PENDING ON THE FILE OF III-JMFC COURT,
BELAGAVI, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/SEC.494 R/W.34 OF IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9296
CRL.P No. 101812 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 101814 of 2023, CRL.P No.
101828 of 2023
ORDER
Heard the counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitioners have filed these petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.31/2021 on the file of learned JMFC-III Court, Belagavi.
3. The brief facts of the de-facto complainant and are as under:
Respondent No.2-the defacto complainant filed a private complaint in PCR No.27/2019 against one Adarsh @ Vrashabhanath alleged to be her husband and one Surekha, who is alleged to be second wife of Adarsh. It is alleged that the complainant is the wife of accused No.1 - Adarsh and during the subsistence of the said marriage, accused No.1 married accused No.4 Surekha and as such, accused No.1 alongwith other accused persons have committed the offence under Section 494 IPC. In the complaint, she made allegations that accused Nos.2, 3 and -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:9296 CRL.P No. 101812 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 101814 of 2023, CRL.P No. 101828 of 2023 5 to 8 participated in the marriage held between accused No.1 and accused No.4, knowing fully well about the subsistence of first marriage between the defacto complainant and accused No.1. Hence, taking exception to the same, these petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners being the father, mother, sisters and relatives of accused No.1 cannot be prosecuted under Section 482 Cr.P.C., inasmuch as, the prosecution contemplated therein is only related to the persons, who have committed the said offences. Merely because, these petitioners have participated in the wedding ceremony, they cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 494 IPC.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/defacto complainant would submit that the offences alleged are under Sections 494 and 114 r/w 149 IPC. The trial court could have taken into consideration the offences which -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:9296 CRL.P No. 101812 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 101814 of 2023, CRL.P No. 101828 of 2023 were alleged, including the charge of abetment and as such, at this juncture, the Court cannot quash the entire proceedings. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petitions.
6. Perused the contents of the private complaint. It appears that on 27.11.2019, the defacto complainant lodged a private complaint alleging that on 12.05.2019, accused No.1 married accused No.4 during the subsistence of first marriage of accused No.1 with the defacto complainant. Hence, it is just and necessary to analyse Section 494 IPC which reads as under:-
Section 494. "Marrying again during life-time 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 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 -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:9296 CRL.P No. 101812 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 101814 of 2023, CRL.P No. 101828 of 2023 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."
7. A perusal of Section 494 IPC would indicate that whoever having husband or wife living, marries during the lifetime of husband or the wife, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years. Though there are certain exceptions which have been provided, those exceptions would not be attracted to the present cases. What is important for this Court to consider is that in terms of Section 494 IPC, it is only the person, who marries during subsistence and life time of the earlier spouse, would be prosecuted. Further, a perusal of Sections 494, 495 and 496 IPC makes it clear that those offences can be persuaded by a spouse against the erring spouse and the other members of the family, who are members of the extended family cannot be prosecuted for those offences. Therefore, prosecuting the case against other accused punishable under Section 494 IPC is unwarranted. In the absence of specific provision constituting the offence of bigamy other than person -8- NC: 2024:KHC-D:9296 CRL.P No. 101812 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 101814 of 2023, CRL.P No. 101828 of 2023 contracting second marriage during the subsistence of first marriage, the private complaint filed against other accused persons alleging that they are abettors for the second marriage, is not maintainable.
8. From the perusal of the material available on record, there are no averments made therein to show that accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were aware of the subsisting marriage between the complainant and accused No.1. Further, there are no allegations made as regards the intention on par with accused Nos.2, 3, 5 to 18 having involved themselves in offence punishable under Section 494 IPC or facilitated or abetted the said offences.
9. The learned VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi allowed the petition of accused Nos.9 to 18 filed under Section 397 IPC vide order dated 06.05.2023 and set aside the order of taking cognisance against accused Nos.9 to 18 for the offences punishable under Sections 494, 504 and 506 r/w 34 IPC.
9. From the perusal of the material available on record, there is sufficient material against accused No.1. In so far as -9- NC: 2024:KHC-D:9296 CRL.P No. 101812 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 101814 of 2023, CRL.P No. 101828 of 2023 accused Nos.2 to 8 are concerned, there is no substance to prosecute them. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that in terms of Section 494 IPC, as is clear from reading of said provision, it is only husband and wife who marries for the second time during the subsistence of the earlier marriage and life time of the earlier spouse, who could be prosecuted and not the petitioners -accused Nos.2 to 8 herein. As such, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
1. Crl.P.No.101812/2023 and Crl.P.No.101814/2023 are allowed.
2. Crl.P.No.101828/2023 is allowed in part.
3. Proceedings in C.C.No.33/2021 on the file of learned JMFC-III Court, Belagavi insofar as petitioners, who are accused Nos.2 to 8 therein are quashed.
However, proceedings shall continue against petitioner No.1/accused No.1.
Sd/-
JUDGE MN/ct-vr List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35