Dismissed

Vijaya D/O. Yenkappa Hebsur v. Hemavati @ Umashri W/O. Mahalingappa Kurtakoti

Karnataka HC11 Nov 2013CRL.P/11659/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a Magistrate's order summoning the Petitioner for offences under Sections 494 IPC and Section 17 Hindu Marriage Act. The Court held the Magistrate's order based on prima facie material was in order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's application to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is rejected and the petition fails.

Vijaya D/O. Yenkappa Hebsur Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No.11659/2011

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

VIJAYA D/O. YENKAPPA HEBSUR AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. CHINCHALAKATTI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

(By Sri VINOD S PAWAR, ADV.)

¶12

AND

¶13

HEMAVATI @ UMASHRI W/O. MAHALINGAPPA KURTAKOTI

¶14

AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. IBRAHIMPUR, TQ: NAVALGUND, NOW RESIDING AT BETAGERI, TQ: KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶15

... RESPONDENT

¶16

(By Sri S S KOLIWAD, ADV.)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.09.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-B PASSED IN P.C.NO.51/2011, NOW C.C.NO.541/2011 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, KOPPAL.

¶18

¶19

This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court made the following

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Petitioner who is one of the accused in P.C.51/11 (now converted into C.C.541/11) facing charge for the offence punishable under Section 494, I.P.C. and Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeks quashing of proceedings against her.

¶22

In support of the relief sought, petitioner’s counsel would submit, respondent had filed a private complaint against several persons invoking Section 200, Cr.P.C. to prosecute them for the said offences. The magistrate has unjustifiably taken cognizance and has passed an order under Section 204, Cr.P.C. summoning the petitioner, while dropping the complaint against others. The first argument is, petitioner is not residing within the jurisdiction of the court which has issued the process and therefore the court should have examined this legal issue. The second ground is, having dropped proceedings against other persons, the magistrate could not have proceeded against the petitioner

¶23

¶24

who is shown to be the second wife of the 1^st accused. He submits, petitioner has not contracted any marriage with the husband of the complainant and there is no prima facie case, and the proceedings are misuse of the process of law which need quashing.

¶25

As could be seen from the order impugned, all that the magistrate has done is, accepting the private complaint on 15.4.2011, taking cognizance and examining the complainant and other witnesses on 25.7.2011. Thereafter on examining the material on record, he opined there is sufficient material to proceed against her and has issued process under Section 204, Cr.P.C. which is perfectly in order and in accordance with the procedure laid down.

¶26

The contention of the petitioner’s counsel that the learned magistrate should have referred the case for enquiry by resorting to Section 202 read with Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. has to be discounted because it is the discretion of the magistrate. The magistrate may, after entertaining the complaint, examine the complainant and

¶27

¶28

conduct enquiry as he thinks fit, under Section 202, Cr.P.C., or straightaway refer it without taking cognizance, to the SHO of the jurisdictional police for investigation.

¶29

In the instant case, the magistrate has taken cognizance and he had to record the sworn statement for ascertainment as to whether a case is made out. The statement of the complainant and witnesses has been examined by the magistrate to opine prima facie case is made out. Such an order is a judicial order. The request of the petitioner to seek quashing invoking Section 482, Cr.P.C. is misconceived and is, therefore, rejected.

¶30

The petition therefore fails. However, the right of the petitioner to seek discharge at the appropriate stage before the trial court is reserved.

¶31

SD/JUDGE

¶32

vgh*

Vijaya D/O. Yenkappa Hebsur v. Hemavati @ Umashri W/O. Mahalingappa Kurtakoti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijaya D/O. Yenkappa Hebsur v. Hemavati @ Umashri W/O. Mahalingappa Kurtakoti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivappa S/O Basavaraj Menasinakai Vs State of Karnataka

Fakkiravva W/O. Gutteppa Jaded Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohan D/O. Adiveppa Limbikai Vs the State of Karnataka

Praveen S/O. Appasaheb Desai Vs State of Karnataka

S.L.Ghasti Vs State of Karnataka

Santosh S/O. Gurunath Chalwadi Vs the State of Karnataka