Allowed

Smt. Vimala. M. G. v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Jun 2024CRL.P/2083/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, sister of accused No.1 charged with bigamy and cruelty offences, sought quashing of proceedings against her. Finding no ingredient of Section 494 or 498A IPC touching her, and noting Section 494 concerns only the spouses involved, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed C.C.No.29631/2022.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.29631/2022 pending before XXXVII ACMM Court, Bengaluru, quashed; liberty reserved to prosecution/court if petitioner found actually involved during trial.

Smt. Vimala. M. G. Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:23738 CRL.P No. 2083 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2083 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. VIMALA M. G. W/O. LATE M. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.40/1, 2^ND MAIN, BEHIND VIDYAPEETA, GURURAJA LAYOUT, THYAGARAJANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 028.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. NATARAJU T., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶15

BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN POLICE STATION, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY ITS S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:23738 CRL.P No. 2083 of 2023

¶18

SMT. SHRUTHI PRAKASH. B W/O. MANJU RAMANARAJU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.8 1^ST TEMPAL STREET 5^TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560061.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHI, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. ANNAPURNA BEVINJIE, ADV. FOR R2)

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.29631/2022 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.204/2022REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A,494 R/W 34 OF IPC WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE 37th ACMM, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner – accused No.4 is before this Court calling

¶25

in question the proceedings in C.C.No.29631/2022, registered for offences punishable under Sections 494 and 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:23738 CRL.P No. 2083 of 2023

¶28

Heard the learned counsel Sri.T.Nataraju, appearing

¶29

for the petitioner, the learned HCGP Sri.Harish Ganapathi, appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel Smt.Annapurna Bevinjie, appearing for respondent No.2.

¶30

3. Facts, in brief germane are as follows:

¶31

Accused No.1, brother of the petitioner gets married to the complainant on 30.05.2024. A complaint then comes to be registered on 02.07.2022 by respondent No.2 alleging that the petitioner along with others have indulged in instigation of the husband - accused No.1 to get married to accused No.2, both

¶32

of whom are not before the Court. The petitioner is arrayed into the crime on the score that she is the sister and a government servant, misusing the position has instigated the brother to get married for the second time, during the subsistence of the first marriage. Therefore, the offence of Section 494 of IPC is laid against all the accused. The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. The filing of the charge sheet is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:23738 CRL.P No. 2083 of 2023

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶35

submits that the petitioner is a government servant and is living a life of her own elsewhere and did not reside at any point with the brother or his wife. He would contend that if the brother has married for the second time, it is for him to answer the charge and not the petitioner for instigation. Merely because the petitioner is a government servant, she has been dragged into these proceedings.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent – complainant would refute the submission contending that the petitioner was also present in the alleged event of second marriage of accused No.1. She would take this Court through the statement of the daughter of the complainant, who was at that point in time 17 years and to contend that the marriage did take place and the petitioner has instigated such marriage. Therefore, all the accused should face trial and come out clean in the same.

¶37

Learned HCGP would toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:23738 CRL.P No. 2083 of 2023

¶40

I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶41

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The offences alleged are the ones punishable under Section 494 and 498A read with Section 34 of IPC. The issue gets triggered from the registration of the complaint against the petitioner and others. The complaint reads as follows:

¶42

" �ಾನ��ೆ ,

¶43

�ೕ�ೆ �ೇ�ರುವ ಮಂಜುರಮಣ�ಾಜು�ನ ಜ�ೆ ��ಾಂಕ 30.5.2004 ರ�� . � . ಆ� �� ! "ಾ��ೆ# ಲ%&ಣಪ( )ಾಡ+ , 30 �ೆ ಮುಖ�ರ-ೆ. , 5 �ೇ ಅಡ0ರ-ೆ. , ಬನಶಂಕ3 3 �ೇ ಹಂತದ ಕ�ಾ�ಣ ಮಂಟಪದ�� 8ಾ-ೊ:ೕಕ.;ಾ< , =ಂದೂ ಸಂಪ�?ಾಯದಂ�ೆ , ಗುರು - =3ಯರ ಮತು. -ೆBೕ=ತರ ಸಮ%ಮದ�� ನನB ಮದು;ೆCಾDತು . ಮದು;ೆಯ ಆಮಂತ�ಣ ಪE�Fೆ ಮತು. ಮದು;ೆ GೕHೊ FೊಡುE.?ೆIೕ;ೆ . ನಮ)ೆ Jೕ=�ಾ . ಎಂ ಎಂಬ 17 ವಷ+ ಪME+Cಾದ ಮಗ�ರು�ಾ.Nೆ . ನನB ಪE ;ಾಸ�ರುವ �Nಾಸ #40, 2 �ೇ ಮುಖ�ರ-ೆ. , �?ಾ��ೕಠ=ಂPಾಗ , ಗುರು�ಾಜ ಬQಾವRೆ , SೆಂಗಳUರು -560 028.

¶44

ಸದ� 2018 V-ೆಂಬ� Eಂಗ�ಂದ �ಾನು ನನB ಪEDಂದ ಪ��ೆ�ೕಕ;ಾ< ;ಾWಸುE.?ೆIೕ�ೆ . ಆತX)ೆ �ಪ3ೕತ;ಾ< ಕುVಯುವ ದುಶYಟ�ದುI , ಅE ಸಂ?ೇಹದ ಸZPಾವದವ�ಾ<ದುI , ನನ)ೆ ?ೈ=ಕ =ಂ-ೆ FೊಡುE.ದIನು . ?ೈನಂ�ನ ಖ+ಗೂ Fೊಡ?ೆ =ಂWಸುE.ದIನು . �ಾನು Fೆಲಸ �ಾಡುE.ದI 8ಾ�ೆಯಲೂ� ನನ)ೆ ಇಲ� ಸಲ�ದ ಸಂಬಂಧಗಳನುB ಕ�_ =ಂWಸುE.ದIನು . �ಾ)ಾ< �ಾನು =ಂ-ೆ �ಾಳ�ಾಗ?ೆ Sೇ�ೆ ಬಂದು �ೕವನನQೆಸುE.?ೆIೕ�ೆ.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:23738 CRL.P No. 2083 of 2023

¶47

ನನB ಪE ಇE.ೕbೆ)ೆ �ಾಗ;ೇc (Pooja) ಎಂSಾ)ೆdಂ�)ೆ 8ಾ-ೊ�ೕಕ.;ಾ< ಎರಡ�ೇ ಮದು;ೆ �ಾVFೊಂVರು�ಾ.�ೆ . ಆತನ ಅಕe �ಮ�ಾ ಮತು. -ೋದರ �ಾವ ಮೂE+ ( Fೆಂ)ೇ3 ಉಪನಗರ ) ಮತು. ತಂ?ೆ �ಾD -ೇ3 ಆತX)ೆ ಈ ಅಪ�ಾಧವನುB �ಾಡಲು h�ೕ�ಾ!=W , "ೆ�ೕ�ೇ�W ಅವರ ಕುಮijeXಂದ ನನB � ಈ ಮದು;ೆCಾ<ರು�ಾ.�ೆ . ನನB ಪEಯ ಎರಡ�ೇ ಪEB ತನB ಮದು;ೆ)ಾ< ಅ3Wನ 8ಾಸ: �ಾಡುE.ರುವ GೕHೋ FೊಡುE.?ೆIೕ�ೆ . ಅರWನ 8ಾಸ:ವನುB ಮತು. ಮದು;ೆಯನುB ನನB ಪEಯ ಮ�ೆಯ��kೕ �ಾVರು�ಾ.�ೆ . ಅವರು �ಾ� ಪMlೆ �ಾV �ಾ�ಕ�_ �ಾ�ೆ ಬದ�ಾDWFೊಂಡು ಮ�ೆ ತುಂmWFೊಂVರುವ �Vdೕ ಮತು. GೕHೋ FೊಡುE.?ೆIೕ�ೆ . ನನB ಪE , �ಾಗ;ೇc , ಪEಯ ತಂ?ೆ )ೋ�ಂದ�ಾಜು , �ಾD "ಾವ+ತಮi , ಅಕe �ಮಲ , �ಾವ ಮೂE+ ಮತು. �ಾಗ;ೇcಯ ತಂ?ೆ �ಾD ಎಲ�ರೂ -ೇ3 ಆ 3ೕE ಎರಡ�ೇ ಮದು;ೆಯಅಪ�ಾಧವನುB �ಾVರು�ಾ.�ೆ .

¶48

ಈ 3ೕE ಇವ�ೆಲ�ರೂ -ೇ3 ನನ)ೆ Jೕಸ �ಾVರು�ಾ.�ೆ . ನನB ಪEಯ ಅಕe SೆಂಗಳU3ನ�� Qೆಪn�� ತಹWೕ�ಾI��ಾ<ದುI , -ೋದರ �ಾವ ಮೂE+ 3Hೈ� �ೆ;ೆನೂ� ಇ !"ೆಕ_ರ�ಾ< . ತಮi ಅoFಾರವನುB ದುರುಪdೕಗ �ಾVFೊಂಡು ನನB ಪE)ೆ ಕುಮiಕುe Fೊಟು_ ಈರಈEನನ)ೆ Jೕಸ�ಾVನನB ಪEಎರಡ�ೇ ಮದು;ೆCಾ<ರು�ಾ.�ೆ .

¶49

=ೕ)ಾ< ಇವ�ೆಲ�ರ �ೕ�ೆ Fಾನೂನು ಪ�Fಾರ ಕ�ಮ �ೆ)ೆದುFೊಂಡು pqೆ)ೆ ಒಳಪVಸುವಂ�ೆ Fೇ�Fೊಳst�ೆ.ೕ�ೆ .

¶50

The police conduct investigation and filed a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:23738 CRL.P No. 2083 of 2023

¶53

column No.17 reads as follows:

¶54

“17. FೇWನಸಂwಪ.-ಾ�ಾಂಶ .

¶55

-ಾw -1 ರವರು ��ಾಂಕ 30/05/2004 ರಂದು ಎ 1 ಆ�ೋ�ಯನುB ಮದು;ೆCಾ<ದುI 17 ವಷ+ದ ಮಗಳs ಇದುI ಎ 1 ಆ�ೋ�ಯು �ಪ3ೕತ;ಾ< ಕುVಯುವಚಟವನುB ಇಟುFೊಂVದುI -ಾw -1 ರವರ�ೕ�ೆ ಅನು�ಾನಪಡುವnದು �ಾV ?ೈನಂ�ನ ಖ+)ೆ ಏನನುB ತಂದು �ಾಕ?ೆ -ಾw -1 ರವರು Fೆಲಸ �ಾಡುವ ಸzಳದ�� ಇಲ�ಸಲ�ದ ಸಂಬಂದಗಳನುB ಕ� ?ೈ=ಕ;ಾ< ಮತು. �ಾನWಕ;ಾ< jರುಕುಳವನುB XೕVದುI ಇದ3ಂದ -ಾw -1 ರವರು Sೇಸತು. , 2018 3ಂದ ಪ��ೆ�ೕಕ;ಾ< ;ಾಸ�ಾVFೊಂVದುI ಎ 1 ಆ�ೋ�ಯು ಎ 2 ಎ 3 ಎ 4 ಎ 5 ಆ�ೋ�ಗಳ h�ೕತ!ಹ�ಂದ �ಾಗ;ೇc ( ಪMಜ ) ಎಂಬ ಹುಡು<ಯನುB -ಾw -1 ರವ3)ೆ E�ಯದಂ�ೆ ಮದು;ೆCಾ< jರುಕುಳವನುB XೕVರುವnದು ತX{ೆDಂದ ದೃಡ ಪ�_ದುI ಸದ3 ಎ 1 ಎ 2 ಎ 3 ಎ 4 ಎ 5 ಆ�ೋ�ಗಳ �ರುದ| ಕಲಂ 498( ಎ ),494 �ೆ / � 34 ಐ�W 3ೕ�ಾ� ?ೋ~ಾ�ೋಪಣ ಪ�_ಯನುB �ಾನ� �ಾ�ಯಲಯFೆe ಸ��Wರು�ೆ. ”

¶56

A perusal at the complaint or the summary of the charge sheet would not indicate any ingredient of an offence that would necessary to be driven home under Section 494 or

¶57

498A of the IPC. Omnibus statement is indicated in the summary of the charge sheet, where accused Nos.1 to 5 have together instigate accused No.1 to get married again. Much emphasis is placed upon the statement of the daughter, which also points at the act of the father – accused No.1 and also presence of the mother on the alleged event of the second marriage. The submission is sought to be buttressed upon the

¶58

¶59

NC: 2024:KHC:23738 CRL.P No. 2083 of 2023

¶60

photographs that are appended to the petition or the statement of objections, as the case would be.

¶61

Section 494 of IPC, is trite, is a triangle between the husband, first wife and the alleged second wife. All others would have nothing to do with the incident. The complaint of this kind makes the triangle to turn into a circle, where all the members of the family are wanting to be dragged into the web of the crime. One such is the present petitioner, the sister of accused No.1 – husband. For an offence under Section 489A of IPC, there is not even a titter of allegation that would touch the ingredients of the offence. Insofar as the offence under Section 498A of IPC is concerned, what is alleged is instigation. It is settled principle of law, that offence under Section 494 of IPC is between the bigamist and the spouse, who indulges in bigamy and not against others, sisters or brothers or whoever have allegedly attended the marriage, to be brought into the web of crime. Finding no offence committed by the petitioner much less the ingredient of either Section 498A of IPC or Section 494 of IPC, the further proceedings are permitted to continue, that would become an abuse of process of law and result in patent

¶62

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:23738 CRL.P No. 2083 of 2023

¶63

injustice. However, liberty is always reserved to the prosecution / or the concerned court to take recourse to procedure, in accordance with law, in the event, during the trial it is seen that the petitioner was actually involved, as is alleged.

¶64

With the aforesaid observations and the said liberty,

¶65

the following order:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

i) The criminal petition is allowed;

¶68

ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.29631/2022 pending on the file of XXXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, stands quashed.

¶69

SD/JUDGE

¶70

KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74

Smt. Vimala. M. G. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vimala. M. G. v. the State of Karnataka

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

Parveen Taj Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Shivaraj N Vs State Represented by

Maruthi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. G.K. Narasimhamurthy Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs Sabari Unnithan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Jude Arokiaraj L Vs State of Karnataka