IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE uaa
DATED THIS THE 25"" DAY OF
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HU1'§_U'VA'D--I_, GIRAfa§EjSi£._ L
CRIMINAL PEWTJTEIROH NOi.33_32 --()§j 2"eIG5I
BETWEEN:
1.
Sri.E.X.AnthOny,
Major in agegy : . A
S/O1ateEe?\/I}?;5.Eivie1';3., 2:
A
Lingaréijapilfiems I
Ban-gaalora,
SrI'It._DO.'I1y,
MajOI=..in age} " A' ..
D/O Chackd,
,, .E:3rIIaEI<u1a1"r1V',' ~ A V
,_ .. . . . . . ..
...PEI'ITI(NElE
(Dy's§i[;ECIIVV_'I§Agesh, Adv.)
..SVrnt.M'aIiaI_<ai Permchery Ansa,
.Major in age,
»_ "¥.D /O"Ma1Iakai E Varunni Sebastian,
No.87, R.Krishna Raddy House,
"Appareddypalyam,
Jkr
colleagues to take further pass over of the matter. However,
having heard him, the Court proceeds to pass
order: --
2. This petition is arising out of dismissabl_"_of' the re,Vi"sion;
petition filed by the petitionersiiherein. On"thei"pri:vate§ complaint
filed by the respondent'S«rnt.Malii§1l{a1_;l§erincheryi Ainsa against
her husband and V16 others;the.’iYI:_AddI.”CMM., Bangalore, in
C.C.No.14696/9il:;;~s»i’|§y iiis o.rder_datedil28;’9.2004, having noted
the a’nd~-the averments made therein
and also on representing the parties has
opined that,’ the con-1pla_ina’nt has made out sufficient grounds to
franie ;¢ha1*ge agaiins’t’iiaccused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence
Section 494 of IPC. Against the said order,
Cirl-R.P_,No,ii5’3i5/2004 was preferred by accused Nos.l and 2.
The Addi. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, on
“‘he}ai”‘ing the parties, has dismissed the revision by his order
i “dated 16.7.2005. Hence, this revision by accused Nos.i and 2.
,,»JJ<~/
3. The impugned order passed by the Revisgionaii’
on 16.07.2005 against which, this criminal
during 2005 and since then, the is the at
stage of framing charge.
4. The iearned 1Coiin_se’1_ itg; the-_’peti*ti.oner has once again
approached and t1’iedgto’*diodgefthe ivprogceedings by seeking
further ‘Q01:-.i”t proceeds to order further on
merits. ——– _ 1 1
_ 5. It’-is ‘seen-.tha.t,petitioner No.1 and the respondent are
Indian.A’Christians;’ ‘their marriage was soiemnized on 5.5.1985 at
Bangalore. Petitioner No.1 is said to be a
p1=a_ctic_i’ngVifidvocate and respondent is a schoolteacher. During
..Novenibe1’ 1990, the respondent is said to have filed a private
conipiaint against petitioner No.1 and 16 others for the offences
‘punishable under Sections 17113, 199, 200, 362, 363, 363-A.,
xx”
366~A, 367, 368, 369, 370, 37.1, 372, 373, 374, 377, I17,
493, 494, 496 and 497 of IPC. Subsequently, on
filed by the complainant, except Sections
and 497 of IPC, the other offencesiicarne’ robe-:T_ T
learned Magistrate took cognizance, of the ,kc;a?ren¢e lé§.gainst”,
accused Nos} to 14. The saidfiorder befchallenged
before this Court in l2-43/1991 and
this Court, by order datedv-?;2′,’ilvinaintained the issuance
of process. for the offence
while setting aside rest
of thelorder.’ 3
” he learhedlviagistrate has passed the order of franiing
gainat’a{:cused Nos.l and 2 only for the offence under
IPC. Against the said order, accused Nos} and
2 approached the Revisional Court. The Revisional Court, on
3′ the revision filed by the petitioners has noted that, the learned
-»v–IKE/Iagistrate has heard the 1::;19’es before framing charge and
recorded statement of 8 witnesses and relied upon the document
Ex.P4 the marriage agreement entered i_nto _betwleerr. ‘the
petitioners and considering the same, the i”nes__i’*~
ordered for sustaining the p1’ocessgaga_inst, the ‘1 4pet.iti’o.ners .ianj;1
whether Ex.P4 the agreement of rnai:vfia’ge is validi
whether under the said agreernent, .contracting parties have
attained the status of husband ‘and;_wife.’is arnatter to be decided
after full fledgedvtrial. Q
to lpetitio-hers, even if EXP4 is taken
into co’nsideratioln~lon.lits_fa::,e” jrzalue, it does not establish a Valid
marriage and to sgatisify titre’ ingredients of Section 494 of IPC,
secloli1d2,_Arnarriage alleged against the accused must be legal and
Valild Vegyeiiof law and without considering the same, the
t:hta1’ge ‘against the petitioners/.
leai<.nedv__'M'agisitrate has committed an error in directing to frame
\3<"
Bkpu
9. Having noted the judgment rendered by the Revisional
Court and the reasoning thereon and, also ft1rther__’4no’t’ing that
this complaint is filed during 1. 990 and the petition:ers.i_.wete ahiggii
to successfully drag on the proca:§edin:gS§,f”o;’
decades, and also as submitted h_v_’*the tea:-neidi
appearing for the petitioners, this rnatt:e1f’vhas’:Vf’peen heard
by different benches. T contention of the
petitioners to ailovy them. Hence,
the matter the matter.
55/:
Ifidgé