Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1001 (KAR)

Nagalingappa Tatti v. Bhagyashree

2017-07-04

BUDIHAL R.B.

body2017
ORDER : BUDIHAL R.B, J. 1. This petition is filed by petitioners-accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying the Court to quash the proceedings and also order, dated 03.04.2013 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Gangavathi in P.C.No.13/2013, which is an order directing to register criminal case for the offence punishable under Section 494 of I.P.C. and ordered to issue summons to the accused. Hence, the petitioners have also sought for quashing of all the proceedings in the said case as against the petitioners herein. 2. The averments in the private complaint are that the respondent herein, who is complainant, is the legally wedded wife of petitioner No. 1/accused No. 1 and their marriage was duly solemnised on 05.05.1999 at Sri. Channabasavaswamy Kalyana Mantapa, Gangavati, in the presence of their parents, relatives and well-wishers and both the parties, according to the customs and rituals of Kurubeenashetty Samaja. In the said wedlock, children namely Kumar Vishwaraj & Kumar Vijetaraj were born to the couple. Since the beginning of the date of marriage of the complainant with accused No. 1, accused No. 1 after few months treated with cruelty at the instance of his relatives and insisted the complainant to bring additional cash, gold, etc., as the complainant is the only daughter to her parents. After accused No. 1 has deserted the complainant and her children and neglected in maintaining the complainant though he has got sufficient source of income, complainant filed Cri.Misc.212/2012 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and the said matter is pending. In the month of July, 2012, the complainant has smelt that accused No.1 has contracted 2nd marriage as his parents were of tenly insisting him to contract 2nd marriage, if the complainant is not satisfied with their additional demand. Accused No. 1 was also self-interested to contact 2nd marriage. In the month of December i.e., on 22.12.2012, when accused No. 1 has filed his objection to the Criminal Misc. Petition, the complainant started to investigate the fact of 2nd marriage of accused No. 1 and on 29.12.2012, complainant came to know that accused No. 1 contracted 2nd marriage with accused No. 2 at the instance of accused Nos. 3 to 9. Hence, on the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered against the petitioners herein and also the process was ordered to be issued by the order of the learned J.M.F.C. Court. 3. 3 to 9. Hence, on the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered against the petitioners herein and also the process was ordered to be issued by the order of the learned J.M.F.C. Court. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that looking to the very complaint averments, firstly there is no allegation about the specific overt act done by each of the petitioners herein. He has also submitted that except the allegation that petitioner No. 1 contracted 2nd marriage with accused No. 2, there is no other material that how they came to know about the 2nd marriage, whether it has taken place, in what mode or manner, regarding that there is absolutely no material and no averments in the complaint. Hence, he has submitted that even if the complaint averments are taken to be true, even then, so far as petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 are concerned, there is no prima facie material placed by the complainant. Hence, he has submitted that so far as petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 is concerned, it is a clear abuse of the process of the Court and it will be waste of valuable time and energy of the Court. Hence, submitted to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings in respect of all the petitioners herein. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has submitted that in the complaint it is mentioned that when father of the complainant made enquiry with petitioner No. 1/accused herein, accused No. 1 himself admitted about the 2nd marriage and he has challenged the father of the complainant that what he is going to do. He has also submitted that looking to the complaint averments, it is mentioned that accused Nos. 3 to 9 instigated petitioner No. 1/accused No. 1 for the 2nd marriage. It is also his submission that the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, submitted that at this stage petitioners have not made out a case for quashing of the proceedings. Hence, submitted to reject the petition. 6. I have perused the grounds urged in the petition, contents of the private complaint filed by the complainant before the trial Court, so also, the sworn statement of the complainant and her father. 7. Therefore, submitted that at this stage petitioners have not made out a case for quashing of the proceedings. Hence, submitted to reject the petition. 6. I have perused the grounds urged in the petition, contents of the private complaint filed by the complainant before the trial Court, so also, the sworn statement of the complainant and her father. 7. So far as petitioner No. 1/accused No. 1 is concerned, no doubt, there is an allegation in the private complaint that petitioner No. 1 contracted 2nd marriage with accused No. 2. However, it is a matter for proof before the concerned Court. 8. But so far as petitioner Nos. 2 to 7/accused are concerned, only one line allegation is made in the private complaint that they instigated petitioner No. 1 herein for contracting 2nd marriage with accused No. 2, except this averment there is no other allegations made specifically about the role played by each of the petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 herein, only bald and vague allegations are made in the complaint that they instigated accused No. 1 to marry accused No. 2. Hence, only on the basis of these averments in the private complaint, it cannot be said that there is prima facie case as against petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 herein. Sofar as petitioner No. 1 herein is concerned, there is an allegation that he married accused No. 2. 9. In view of these materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that sofar as petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 are concerned, there is no prima facie material placed by the respondent/complainant, even if the proceedings are continued as against them, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it will be a futile exercise by the complainant and so also it is the waste of valuable time and energy of the Court. Hence, petition is party allowed. The petition in respect of petitioner No.1/accused No. 1 is rejected for the present and petition is in respect of petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 is allowed and the order, dated 03.04.2013 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Gangavathi, in P.C.No.13/2013 and the criminal proceedings initiated against petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 herein are hereby quashed.