Dismissed

Subhash S/O Vemanna Chavadi v. Girija W/O Subhash Chavadi

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2022CRL.P/101313/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, dismissed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash bigamy proceedings. The Court held that specific allegations against close relatives regarding their participation in the second marriage require proof at trial, precluding quashing at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash criminal proceedings CC No. 91/2014 based on PC No. 32/2013 was dismissed.

Subhash S/O Vemanna Chavadi Vs Girija W/O Subhash… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 101313 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101313 OF 2019 (482-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SUBHASH S/O VEMANNA CHAVADI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: SAVADI, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.

¶9

SMT.SHANTAVVA ALLEGED W/O SUBHASH CHAVADI, D/O AMARAPPA KUMBAR, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SAVADI, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.

¶10

ERAPPA S/O VEERABHADRAPPA KUMBAR, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: YARAGUPPI, TQ: KUNDAGOL, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶11

MANJU S/O VEMANNA KUMBAR @ CHAVADI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: SAVADI, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.

¶12

SHIVANAND S/O VEMANNA KUMBAR @ CHAVADI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: SAVADI, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.

¶13

KALAKAPPA S/O HUCCHAPPA BHAGOR @ BAGUR, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: SAVADI, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.

¶14

SANGAPPA S/O ABRATAPPA @ AMRATHAPPA KUMBAR, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: CHIKKAMANNUR, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.

¶15

¶16

CRL.P No. 101313 of 2019

¶17

SMT.RENUKA W/O SHASHIKANTH KUMBAR @ PADASALIGI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

¶18

R/O: SAVADI, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.

¶19

MALLAVVA W/O MANJU KUMBAR, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: SAVADI, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.

¶20

MANGALA W/O SHIVANAND KUMAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: SAVADI, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.

¶21

HAMPAVVA W/O AMARAPPA KUMBAR, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: UDAMAKAL, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶22

DEVAVVA W/O SIDDAPPA KUMBAR, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: UDAMAKAL, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶23

…PETITIONERS

¶24

(BY SRI. GANAPATI M. BHAT., ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

GIRIJA W/O SUBHASH CHAVADI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SAVADI, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG, NOW C/O: SRI.RUDRAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA KUMBAR, NEAR YELLAMMANA TEMPLE, KUMBAR STREET, YELBURGA, TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶27

…RESPONDENT

¶28

(BY SRI. R.H. ANGADI., ADVOCATE)

¶29

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 07.09.2013 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN AND ORDER DATED 02.04.2014 I.E., TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE CASE AND FURTHER ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.91/2014 (PRIVATE

¶30

¶31

CRL.P No. 101313 of 2019

¶32

COMPLAINT NO.32/2013) FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 494, 107, 504, 506, R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC COURT, YELBURGA AND ORDER DATED 24.04.2019 IN CRL.RP.NO.36/2014 PASSED BY THE DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL, INSOFARAS THE PETITIONERS HEREIN/ ACCUSED 1 TO 5 & 7 TO 12 & 14 RESPECTIVELY BEFORE TRIAL COURT.

¶33

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 3,

¶36

7 to 12 and 14 before the trial Court have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in C.C. No.91/2014 (based on private complaint No.32/2013) for the offences punishable under Sections 494, 107, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC.

¶37

It is the case of the petitioners that the marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent was solemnized during the year 1989, and they are having four children. They were residing at Dharwad, in a rented house in connection with the studies of their children. Respondent has alleged that on two occasions, in a

¶38

¶39

CRL.P No. 101313 of 2019

¶40

inebriated condition, petitioner No.1 abused respondent No.1.

¶41

Alleging that on 07.09.2013 petitioner No.1 has married petitioner No.2 at Sooryammanakola Temple near Surebhan of Ramadurg Taluk, Belagavi District, on 03.06.2010, respondent filed private complaint in PC. No.32/2013 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. After recording sworn statement of respondent and two other witnesses, the trial Court has taken cognizance against accused Nos.1 to 14 for the offences punishable under Sections 494, 107, 504, 506 r/w. Section 149 of IPC. It was challenged before the District Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.36/2014. However, by order dated 24.04.2019, the said petition came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by these orders, the present petition is filed.

¶42

After due service of notice respondent has appeared through counsel.

¶43

¶44

CRL.P No. 101313 of 2019

¶45

During the course of arguments, the learned

¶46

counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are no reasonable grounds to proceed against the petitioners. They have been falsely impleaded at the instance of persons who are inimical towards them. As per the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Chand Dhawan Vs. Jawahar Lal and Others¹ (Chand Dhawan’s Case) mere presence of accused cannot hold that they have facilitated a solemnization of the second marriage with the knowledge that earlier marriage was subsisting. There is an inordinate delay in filing the complaint.

¶47

On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent submits that during the subsistence his marriage with respondent, petitioner No.1 has contracted second marriage with petitioner No.2 and the remaining petitioners being the close relatives have participated and performed the said marriage. This is supported by the fact

¶48

1 (1992) 3 SCC 317

¶49

¶50

CRL.P No. 101313 of 2019

¶51

that subsequently petitioner No.1 has relinquished his right over certain properties in favor of petitioner No.2. It is for the respondent No.1 to establish the allegations during the trial. Whether there is any delay in filing the complaint is a matter to be established at trial and the disputed facts cannot be adjudicated in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC. After considering all these aspects, the Revision Court has rightly dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners and prays to reject the petition also.

¶52

Heard the arguments and perused the materials

¶53

on record.

¶54

It is an undisputed fact that petitioner No.1 and respondent are legally wedded husband and wife and their marriage is subsisting. It is the specific case of the respondent that during the substance of this marriage petitioner No.1 has contracted second marriage with petitioner Nos.2 and the same was facilitated by the remaining petitioners. These facts are required to be established during the trial. Prima-facie there is a material

¶55

¶56

CRL.P No. 101313 of 2019

¶57

to proceed against the petitioners. Whether the remaining petitioners were aware of the substance of marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent and whether they willingly participated and facilitated the marriage between the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 is a matter to be decided at trial. Of course petitioners would have all their defense before the trial Court.

¶58

So far as Chand Dhawan’s Case relied upon petitioners, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the quashing of criminal proceedings against respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein, who have allegedly entered into second marriage during the subsistence of first marriage of respondent No.1. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court up held the quashing of criminal proceedings against the remaining respondents, on the ground that there were no specific allegations against them and that they had no knowledge of first marriage of respondent No.1. However, in the present case there are specific allegations against the remaining petitioners who are close relatives of

¶59

¶60

CRL.P No. 101313 of 2019

¶61

respondent Nos.1 and 2 and it is the specific case of the respondent that they participated in the second marriage of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 with the knowledge of earlier marriage of petitioner No.1. Therefore, the above decision is not applicable to the case on hand.

¶62

Thus from the above discussion, I find no justifiable reasons to interfere under the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the result the petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed .

¶63

SD/JUDGE

¶64

Subhash S/O Vemanna Chavadi v. Girija W/O Subhash Chavadi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash S/O Vemanna Chavadi v. Girija W/O Subhash Chavadi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Mallappa Vs Trupti W/O Mallappa Angadi

Shivanand Shambulingayah Hiremath Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Kasturi W/O Ashok Pattar Vs the State of Karnataka

T Maimunnisa Begum W/O Rahamathulla Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Srinivas Manjunath Shetty Vs Asha Srinivas Shetty

Smt. Shakunthala W/O Kallappa Hosamani Vs M/S Gandhinagar Urban Co. -Operative