Dismissed

Smt. Sujata v. Shri Veeranna

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2023CRL.P/102945/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two Criminal Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C challenging revisions regarding the non-cognizance against relatives in a bigamy case. Relying on Section 494 IPC, the court held that only the spouse can be prosecuted for bigamy, not family members.

What did the court decide?

Both criminal petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C were dismissed as no error was committed by the learned Sessions Court.

Smt. Sujata Vs Shri Veeranna — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13161 CRL.P No. 102944 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 102945 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102944 OF 2023 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102945 OF 2023

¶7

IN CRL.P. NO. 102944 OF 2023:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SUJATA W/O PRAMOD SAMBARGI, AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE NOW NIL, R/O. GHODGHERI VILLAGE, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591309.

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

VIJAYALAKSHMIM KANKUPPI Digitally signedbyVIJAYALAKSHMIM KANKUPPIDate: 2023.11.2011:50:16 +0530

¶14

SMT. SHIVALEELA D/O SHIVAPUTRAPPA SHABADI, W/O. PRAMOD SAMBARGI, AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O. 4656/B, BHADKAL GALLI, BELAGAVI, TQ. & DIST. BELAGAVI-591001.

¶15

… RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.06.2023 PASSED BY THE IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT BELAGAVI IN CRL. REV. P.NO.574/2019.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13161 CRL.P No. 102944 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 102945 of 2023

¶19

IN CRL.P. NO. 102945 OF 2023:

¶20

BETWEEN:

¶21

SMT. SUJATA W/O. PRAMOD SAMBARGI, AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE NOW NIL, R/O. GHODGHERI VILLAGE, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591309.

¶22

… PETITIONER

¶23

(BY SRI. SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

SHRI. VEERANNA S/O GANGAPPA SAMBARGI, AGE. 71 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. HOUSE NO.4656/B , BHADKAL GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶26

SMT. SHAKUNTALA W/O VEERANNA SAMBARGI, AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HOUSE NO.4656/B, BHADKAL GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶27

SHRI. PRAVEEN S/O VEERANNA SAMBARGI, AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. HOUSE NO. 4656/B, BHADKAL GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶28

SMT. MEENAXI W/O PRAVEEN SAMBARGI, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HOUSE NO. 4656/B, BHADKAL GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶29

SHRI. SHRIDHAR S. KANKANAMELI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. NEAR CHARNTIMATH, HUNDEKAR ONI, OLD BAGALKOT-587101.

¶30

SMT. JAYASHREE SHIVANAND ANKALAGI, AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. OPP. JAINBASTI HINDWADI, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶31

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13161 CRL.P No. 102944 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 102945 of 2023

¶32

SHRI. ASHOK SIDRAMAPPA BAGALKOT, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. C/O. SHRISHAIL KANKANAMELI, NEAR CHARNTIMATH, HUNDEKAR ONI, OLD BAGALKOT-587101.

¶33

SMT. DRAKSHAYANI SHRISHAIL KANKANMELI, AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. NEAR CHARNTIMATH, HUNDEKAR ONI, OLD BAGALKOT-587101.

¶34

SHRI. M.R. GHATGENNAVAR, AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. C/O. VEERANNA SAMBARAGI, H.NO. 4656/B, BHADAKAL GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶35

SHRI. S.S. ROTTI, AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. C/O. VEERANNA SAMBARAGI, H.NO. 4656/B, BHADAKAL GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶36

SHRI. S.V. KINAGI, AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. C/O. SHIVALEELA SHIVAPUTRAPPA SHABADI, RADHA KRISHNNA NAGAR, INGALESHWAR ROAD, AT/POST BASAVANBAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586203.

¶37

SHRI. PRASHANT SHRISHAIL KANKANMEL, AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. NEAR CHARNTIMATH, HUNDEKAR ONI, OLD BAGALKOT-587101.

¶38

SHRI. SHRISHAIL S. KANKANMELI, AGE. 64 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NEAR CHARNTIMATH, HUNDEKAR ONI, OLD BAGALKOT-587101.

¶39

SMT. CHANNAWWA CHANNABASAPPA JIGANAGI, AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. AMBEDAGATTI, TALUK. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-591102.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13161 CRL.P No. 102944 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 102945 of 2023

¶42

SHRI. SHIVANAND S. ANKALAGI, AGE. 64 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED, R/O. NEAR JAIN BASTI HINDWADI, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶43

… RESPONDENTS

¶44

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.02.2023 PASSED BY THE XI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI IN CRL.RP NO.17/2017.

¶45

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

These matters heard together and disposed by

¶48

common order.

¶49

Crl.P.No.102944/2023 is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the order dated 22.06.2023 passed by the learned IX Additional District

¶50

and Sessions Judge & Member Additional MACT, Belagavi in Crl.Revision Petition No.574/2019.

¶51

Crl.P.No.102945/2023 is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the learned XI Additional District

¶52

and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Crl.Revision Petition No.17/2017.

¶53

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13161 CRL.P No. 102944 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 102945 of 2023

¶54

¶55

Both these petitions are filed by the complainant of P.C.No.217/2016. Respondent in Crl.P.No.102944/2023 is alleged second wife of the husband of the petitioner. Respondents in Crl.P.No.102945/2023 are parents and relatives of the husband of the petitioner who alleged to have participated

¶56

in the marriage of husband of the petitioner with respondent in Crl.P.No.102944/2023.

¶57

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on admission.

¶58

The case of the petitioner is that she is legally wedded wife of the Sri Pramod. Their marriage taken place on 28.05.2011 and it was registered on 03.10.2011. Out of their wedlock they have a male child by name

¶59

Samarth. It is case of the petitioner that during subsistence of marriage of the petitioner with said Mr.Pramod, the said Pramod married the respondentShivaleela on 28.05.2015 at Kudal Sangam. The respondent-Shivaleela is aware of marriage of the

¶60

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13161 CRL.P No. 102944 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 102945 of 2023

¶61

petitioner with the said Mr.Pramod and inspite of that she married with Mr.Pramod. It is alleged that respondentShivaleela actively participated in commission of the offence. In the private complaint filed by the petitioner in P.C.No.217/2016, it is stated that the respondents in Crl.P.No.102945/2023 being parents and relatives of the Mr.Pramod have participated in the marriage of the Mr.Pramod with the respondent-Shivaleela and have abated the commission of the offences . The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the Mr.Pramod and respondent-Shivaleela for offence punishable under Section 494 of I.P.C and ordered to register criminal case against them for offence punishable under Section 494 of I.P.C and case came to be registered in C.C.No.6/2017. The learned Magistrate did not take cognizance against the parents and relatives of the Mr.Pramod. (respondents in Crl.P.No.102945/2023).

¶62

The said respondent-Shivaleela filed criminal

¶63

revision petition No.574/2019 against order dated

¶64

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13161 CRL.P No. 102944 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 102945 of 2023

¶65

22.10.2016 passed in C.C.No.6/2017 (P.C.No.217/2016) the order of taking cognizance against her for offence punishable under Section 494 of I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties passed an order dated 22.06.2023 allowing the revision petition and set aside the order dated 22.10.2016 passed by the II JMFC Court, Belagavi in P.C.No.217/2016 for registering the case against accused No.2 in C.C.No.6/2017. Challenging the said order passed in revision petition the petitioner has filed criminal petition No. 102944/2023.

¶66

The order of the Magistrate not taking cognizance against parents and relatives of the Mr.Pramod (accused Nos.2 to 16 in P.C.No.217/2016 (respondents in Crl.P.No.102945/2023) has been challenged by petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.17/2017. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing parties has passed order dated:10.02.2023 and dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner by confirming the order passed by learned Magistrate in P.C.No.217/2023 dated 22.10.2016. The said order has been challenged in Crl.P.No.102945/2023.

¶67

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13161 CRL.P No. 102944 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 102945 of 2023

¶68

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the said Shivaleela inspite of knowing that Mr.Pramod is married with the petitioner, she has married him and committed offence punishable under Section 494 of I.P.C. He further contends that parents and relatives of the Mr.Pramod (respondents in Crl.P.No.102945/2023) have participated in the marriage of the Mr.Pramod with respondent-Shivaleela. They abated the commission of the offence punishable under Section 494 of I.P.C. The learned Magistrate has erred in not taking cognizance against them and learned Session judge has erred in rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner.

¶69

As per averments of the complaint in P.C.No.217/2016 the petitioner Smt. Sujata has married Mr.Pramod on 28.05.2011 and later their marriage came to be registered on 03.10.2011. Out of their marriage they got one child namely Samarth. In the said complaint, it is stated that Mr.Pramod during subsistence of his marriage with this petitioner-Sujatha has married Smt.

¶70

9 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13161 CRL.P No. 102944 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 102945 of 2023

¶71

Shivaleela on 28.05.2015. In the said complaint it is also stated that parents and relatives of the Mr.Pramod (respondents in Crl.P.No.102945/2023) have participated in the said marriage of Mr.Pramod with Shivaleela. The learned Magistrate has took cognizance against Mr.Pramod and Mrs.Shivaleela for offence punishable under Section 494 of I.P.C by order dated 22.10.2016 and refused to take cognizance against parents and relatives of the Mr.Pramod (respondents in Crl.P.No.102945/2023). Based on the documents produced by the petitioner in EX.P1 and P2 the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against

¶72

the Mr.Pramod and Mrs.Shivaleela. As there are no materials placed by the petitioner, learned Magistrate did not take cognizance against parents and relatives of the Mr.Pramod who alleged to have participated in the marriage. At the time of taking cognizance there were no materials against parents and relatives of the Mr.Pramod, that they have abeted the accused No.1 Mr.Pramod to commit offence punishable under Section 494 of I.P.C. Therefore, learned Magistrate has not erred in passing the

¶73

10 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13161 CRL.P No. 102944 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 102945 of 2023

¶74

order dated 22.10.2016 in PCR No.217/2016 and learned Sessions judge has passed the order dated10.02.2023 by confirming the order passed by the trial Court in PCR No.217/2016 dated 22.10.2016 passed by the learned Magistrate.

¶75

The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the Mr.Pramod for offence punishable under Section 494 of I.P.C. There are no allegations against this Smt.Shivaleela that it is her first marriage and she is having husband. On perusal of Section 494 of I.P.C it makes clear that “Offence can be pursued by a spouse against an erring spouse.” The said aspect has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of the Srinivas Sagar.B and others Vs. State and other in Criminal Petition No.7931/2022 C/w Crl.Petition No.7825/2022 (decided on 12.10.2023) wherein it is held as under

¶76

“A perusal of Sections 494, 495 and 496 of IPC makes it clear that those offences can be pursued by a spouse against an erring spouse and the other

¶77

- 11 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13161 CRL.P No. 102944 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 102945 of 2023

¶78

members of the family or members of the extended family cannot be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 494, 495 or 496 of IPC.”

¶79

The learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that the offence of bigamy attracted only against the accused No.1/Mr.Pramod, It should not be extended to accused No.2/Mrs Shivaleela because it is her first marriage with accused No.1/Mr.Pramod and rightly allowed the revision petition filed by Mrs.Shivaleela.

¶80

Considering all these aspects no error has been committed by learned Sessions Court in passing impugned orders in Criminal Revision Petition No.574/2019 and Criminal Revision Petition No.17/2017. There are no grounds made out for admission of these petitions. Hence, petitions are dismissed.

¶81

Sd/JUDGE

¶82

DSP CT:BCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Smt. Sujata v. Shri Veeranna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sujata v. Shri Veeranna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs B R Lakshmana S/O Ramachandrappa

Mohammad Asif S/O. Abdul Rahim Chittewale Vs Rehana Begum @ Rehanabanu W/O Mohammad Asif Chittewale

Bahubali S/O Gangappa Teradal Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Sayyad Murtuza Sayyad Kasim Khaji Vs the State of Karnataka

Akashavani Aliyass Nagarada S/O Ambammamurthi Vs the State of Karnataka

Parashuram S/O. Bhimasen Shingri Vs State