Allowed

Geeta W/O Lingaraj Sirgapur and Anr. v. Malashree W/O Yeshwant @ Yeshantraya Patil

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2023CRL.P/200071/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners accused Nos. 6 and 7 under Sections 494, 420 and 149 of IPC, holding absence of essential ingredients against them made the proceedings an abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.20103/2022 were quashed insofar as they relate to petitioners accused Nos. 6 and 7.

Geeta W/O Lingaraj Sirgapur and Anr. Vs Malashree… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC-K:4914 CRL.P No. 200071 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200071 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. GEETA W/O LINGARAJ SIRGAPUR AGE 37 YEARS OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O JAY NAGAR, OPP OM NAGAR, SEDAM ROAD, KALABURAGI

¶10

LINGARAJ S. SIRGAPUR AGE 47 YEARS OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O JAY NAGAR, OPP: OM NAGAR, SEDAM ROAD, KALABURAGI

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

Digitally signed by KHAJAAMEEN L MALAGHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. SHARANABASAPPA K BABSHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

MALASHREE W/O YESHWANT @ YESHANTRAYA PATIL AGE 27 YEARS OCC. HOUSE HOLD R/O PLOT NO.15, MAIN CROSS LAXMI NAGAR, NEAR ASHA JYOTI SCHOOL, SEDAM ROAD, KALABURAGI 585106

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-K:4914 CRL.P No. 200071 of 2023

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.11.2022 TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS TO THE PETITIONERS - ACCUSED NOS.6 AND 7 AND QUASHING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 494 AND 420 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC, IN P.C.NO.418/2022 (C.C.NO.20103/2022), PENDING ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT KALABURAGI.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners - accused Nos.6 and 7 challenging the proceedings in C.C.No.20103/2022, on the file of the V Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, at Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under Sections 494 and 420 read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-K:4914 CRL.P No. 200071 of 2023

¶24

The summary of the charge-sheet is that, the respondent No.2 – de-facto complainant, had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that, the accused No.1 is the husband, accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents-in-law, the accused No.4 is the brotherin-law, the accused Nos.5 and 6 are the sisters-in-law, the accused No.7 is the husband of accused No.6, accused No.8 is the second wife of accused No.1 and accused Nos.9 and 10 are the father and mother of accused No.8. It is alleged that, the accused Nos.2 to 4 subjected her cruelty, due to which she left the company of the accused No.1 in the month of November – 2018. It is further alleged that, on 10.01.2021 the complainant’s witnesses Nos.1 and 2, when they had been to Ramtirth Mandir, they saw the accused No.1 contacting second marriage with accused No.8.

¶25

The learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences. Taking exception of the same, the petitioners – accused Nos.6 and 7 are before this Court.

¶26

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-K:4914 CRL.P No. 200071 of 2023

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners – accused Nos.6 and 7 and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 - complainant.

¶28

Section 494 of IPC specified that, whoever having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. In other words, the husband and wife respectively contracting a second marriage during subsistence of their second marriage, is an offence.

¶29

In the present case, the allegation of contracting second marriage, is against the accused No.1 with accused No.8. Hence, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate, against the petitioners – accused Nos.6 and 7 is impermissible.

¶30

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-K:4914 CRL.P No. 200071 of 2023

¶31

Except the allegation that, the petitioners – accused Nos.6 and 7 are the relatives of accused No.1, there is no allegation as against these petitioners – accused Nos.6 and 7, as to how and in what manner they defrauded the complainant.

¶32

Hence, in the absence of any essential ingredients, so as to constitute the commission of the aforesaid offences, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate for the above said offences is without any subsistence. Hence, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against these petitioners – accused Nos.6 and 7, will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

I. The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶35

II. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.20103/2022 on the file of the V

¶36

Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Court at Kalaburagi, is hereby quashed, insofar as it relates to petitioners - accused Nos.6 and 7.

¶37

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-K:4914 CRL.P No. 200071 of 2023

¶38

In view disposal of main petition, the pending I.As. if

¶39

any do not survive for consideration and hence, they are

¶40

disposed of.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

KJJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55

Geeta W/O Lingaraj Sirgapur and Anr. v. Malashree W/O Yeshwant @ Yeshantraya Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geeta W/O Lingaraj Sirgapur and Anr. v. Malashree W/O Yeshwant @ Yeshantraya Patil

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

Altaf S/O Allabaksh Bairmadagi and Anr. Vs the State of Karnataka

Ashraf S/O Davalsab Maniyar Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Nanasab Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Manikant Vs the State

Manikant Vs the State

Sangamesh @ Sangappa and Anr. Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.