Karnataka High Court
Sudharshan vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6669
CRL.P No. 201694 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201694 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SUDHARSHAN
S/O KANTEPPA,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
2. SHASHIKALA
D/O PARASHURAM DHANVARAKAR,
AGE: 31 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O ATIWAL VILLAGE,
Digitally signed TQ. HUMNABAD,
by RENUKA NOW AT 17-1-317,
Location: HIGH C.M.C COLONY,
COURT OF GANDI NAGAR,
KARNATAKA DIST. BIDAR-585401.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. JIDAGE KAILASH C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH GANDHI GUNJ P.S.,
BIDAR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6669
CRL.P No. 201694 of 2025
HC-KAR
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. S.P.P.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585102.
2. ASHWINI
W/O SUDHARSHAN (D/O ARJUN),
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
C/O ATIWAL VILLAGE,
TQ. HUMNABAD,
NOW AT 17-1-461,
SHASTRINAGAR MAILUR,
DIST. BIDAR-585401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN., HCGP FOR R1;)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. (OLD), UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS (NEW),
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS OF CC
NO.3048/2025 ARISING OUT OF P.C.R.NO.304/2024 PENDING
ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BIDAR DIST. BIDAR,
FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 82 OF BNSS AS AGAINST
THE PRESENT PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.1 AND 5.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6669
CRL.P No. 201694 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to accept notice for respondent No.1-State.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contended that the impugned order taking cognizance suffers from patent illegality. It is argued that there are absolutely no incriminating materials to proceed against the petitioners for the alleged offence under Section 494 of IPC, and that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance solely on the basis of the self-serving sworn testimony of the respondent-wife and speculative allegations. According to the petitioners, the issuance of process without any material indicative of a second valid marriage is unsustainable and therefore warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6669 CRL.P No. 201694 of 2025 HC-KAR
3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and examined the reasoning assigned by the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance. At the outset, it requires to be noted that the scope of judicial review at the stage of taking cognizance is extremely limited. The High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence or adjudicate upon the probable defences of the accused. The Court is only required to ascertain whether the material placed before the Magistrate prima facie discloses the commission of an offence and whether the Magistrate has applied his mind to such material.
4. Upon perusal of the order, it is evident that the respondent-wife, having filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., has entered the witness box as PW.1 and has produced certain documents, including six (6) photographs allegedly posted on Facebook celebrating -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6669 CRL.P No. 201694 of 2025 HC-KAR a wedding anniversary (marked as Exs.P10 and P11) and Ex.P12 a letter issued by the Principal stating that the first petitioner, though married to the respondent-wife, is presently blessed with a child in the alleged wedlock between the first and second petitioners. These materials, at this stage, constitute prima facie material sufficient for the learned Magistrate to form an opinion that the allegations require to be tested at trial. The defence of the petitioners that there was no second marriage and that the relationship was merely a live-in arrangement is a matter for trial and cannot be examined at the pre- cognizance or cognizance stage.
5. On a holistic examination of the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Magistrate has, upon due application of mind to the sworn testimony and documents produced along with the complaint, rightly taken cognizance and issued summons. It is well settled that the High Court cannot, at this stage, embark upon a roving inquiry to determine the correctness -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6669 CRL.P No. 201694 of 2025 HC-KAR or otherwise of the allegations, nor can it weigh the sufficiency of evidence as if conducting a mini trial. Since the materials produced disclose some incriminating circumstances which require to be adjudicated during trial, no case is made out for interference.
6. The petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. All contentions of the parties are left open to be urged before the Trial Court.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3 CT:SI