Karnataka High Court
Rayappa S/O Siddappa Kalatippi vs Smt. Lalita W/O Kallappa Mathad on 4 December, 2020
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101918/2017
BETWEEN:
1. Rayappa S/o. Siddappa Kalatippi,
Age 65 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Mantur, Tq. Raibag, Dist. Belagavi.
2. Basavaraj S/o. Rayappa Kalatippi,
Age 46 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Mantur, Tq. Raibag, Dist. Belagavi.
3. Sadashiv S/o. Sidaling Hanji,
Age 65 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Mantur, Tq. Raibag, Dist. Belagavi.
4. Ashok S/o. Sadashiv Hanji,
Age 41 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Mantur, Tq. Raibag, Dist. Belagavi.
5. Smt. Suvarna W/o. Ashok Hanji,
Age 36 years, Occ: Household works,
R/o. Mantur, Tq. Raibag, Dist. Belagavi.
6. Balappa S/o. Basavanneppa Mathad,
Age 39 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Mantur, Tq. Raibag, Dist. Belagavi.
Crl.P.No.101918/2017
:2:
7. Smt. Vaishali W/o. Balappa Mathad,
Age 31 years, Occ: Household works,
R/o. Mantur, Tq. Raibag, Dist. Belagavi.
8. Ningappa S/o. Adiveppa Mathad,
Age 56 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Bellad Bagewadi, Tq. Gokak,
Dist. Belagavi.
9. Smt. Gangawwa W/o. Ningappa Mathad,
Age 46 years, Occ: Household works,
R/o. Bellad Bagewadi, Tq. Gokak,
Dist. Belagavi.
10. Revappa S/o. Adiveppa Mathad,
Age 54 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Sindikurabetta, Tq. Gokak,
Dist. Belagavi.
11. Smt. Mahadevi W/o. Revappa Mathad,
Age 46 years, Occ: Household works,
R/o. Sindikurabetta, Tq. Gokak,
Dist. Belagavi.
12. Sadashiv S/o. Balappa Malagar,
Age 51 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Naganur, Tq. Gokak,
Dist. Belagavi.
13. Smt. Mahadevi W/o. Sadashiv Malagar,
Age 41 years, Occ: Household works,
R/o. Naganur, Tq. Gokak,
Dist. Belagavi.
14. Rachappa S/o. Sadashiv Malagar,
Age 29 years, occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Naganur, Tq. Gokak,
Dist. Belagavi.
Crl.P.No.101918/2017
:3:
15. Balappa S/o. Sadashiv Malagar,
Age 25 years, Occ: Business,
R/o. Naganur, Tq. Gokak,
Dist. Belagavi.
... Petitioners
(By Sri. Prashant S. Kadadevar, Advocate)
AND:
Smt. Lalita W/o. Kallappa Mathad,
Age 39 years, Occ: Household works,
R/o. Malali, Tq. Mudhol, Dist. Bagalkot.
...Respondent
(Mr. Sajid I. Goodwala, Advocate for
Sri. Jagadish Patil, Advocate for respondent)
---
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.no.9
of 2017 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC Court, Jamkhandi, for the offence punishable under
Sections 494, 495 read with Section 109 of IPC, with respect
to accused Nos.4 to 18.
This petition coming on for Admission through physical
hearing/video conferencing hearing this day, the court made
the following:
ORDER
The present petitioners are accused Nos.4 to 18 in C.C.No.9/2017 pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Jamkhandi, (for brevity Crl.P.No.101918/2017 :4: hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') for the offences punishable under Sections 494, 495 read with Section 109 of Indian Penal Code (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), who have sought for quashing of the said entire criminal proceeding against them which was initiated by the present respondent through her complaint in P.C.No.14/2016 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. in the trial Court.
2. The summary of the said complaint was that, the respondent No.1 is legally wedded wife of the accused No.1 - Sri. Kallappa S/o. Adiveppa Mathad having married to him in a customary manner. However, after the marriage, her husband addicted to various vices and was also physically assaulting her and was filing several false civil and criminal cases, which made the complainant to roam around several Courts by engaging several counsels to defend her interest. In such a situation, on 12.12.2016 her uncle Sri. Shivanand Crl.P.No.101918/2017 :5: Ningappa Totagi when had been to Sri. Basaveshwar Temple at Kadapatti of Jamakhandi taluka, noticed her husband marrying accused No.2-Smt. Suvarna daughter of Basappa Bijjaragi in the presence of all the other accused. The complainant has alleged that all the other accused have actively participated in performing the said second marriage of her husband with accused No.2 while she (complainant) was living as a legally wedded wife of accused No.1. Accordingly, she alleged the offences punishable under Sections 494, 495 read with Section 109 of IPC, against them.
3. After taking cognizance the said complaint was given a criminal case number by the trial Court as C.C.No.9/2017 and it ordered for issuance of summons to the accused. It is the said criminal proceeding, the present petitioners have prayed for quashing. Crl.P.No.101918/2017 :6:
4. Learned counsel for the respondent is being represented by her counsel.
5. Though this matter is listed today for Admission, however, with the consent from both sides, the matter is taken up for its final disposal.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners in his arguments submitted that, the petitioners are the relatives and neighbors of accused No.1 and the petition is contrary to Section 204 of Code of Criminal Procedure, since no list of witnesses has been filed or furnished along with the complaint which is mandatory. He further submits that, no specific allegations are made against any of the present petitioners, as such also the complaint is bereft of any merit against the present petitioners, thus the petition deserves to be allowed.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent in his one sentence argument submits that, as per Section 204(2), Crl.P.No.101918/2017 :7: no summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused until a list of prosecution witnesses has been filed. He submits that, admittedly since in this case no list of witnesses has been filed, he has 'No objection' to allow the petition, however, a liberty be given to the complainant to file the case afresh along with the list of witnesses.
8. In the light of the above submissions from both sides, and more particularly, by the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent who concedes that the present complaint in its present status as filed by the complainant without furnishing any list of witnesses is not maintainable and seeks for a liberty to file afresh, the Court has to proceed in allowing the petition and quashing the criminal proceeding, as prayed and as against the petitioners.
Crl.P.No.101918/2017:8:
9. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER The petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.9/2017 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge & JMFC Court, Jamakhandi, for the offences punishable under Sections 494, 495 read with Section 109 of Indian Penal Code, however, confining the same to the present petitioners, stand quashed.
However, liberty for the present respondent to file any fresh complaint for the same cause of action in the trial Court cannot be acceded to at this stage for the reason that the said criminal case is pending as against the remaining accused in the trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE *Svh/-