IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN<;;m.2;éIE_1%%:4 ' "
I)ated this the 19"' day efJm:e, V L" %
Before
IHE HON'RLl-3' MR JUSHCE Hv1:£IV}i£ii G
Crimimll Paaturiau-{East / "zaas T '
1. S1-iSGMaJlika:jux1a, my-.~s_. .A
S/o Gurupadaiah, Dwclopm-en:
Life Insurance Corporatianuf «V " ~ "
2. MaI1aia1t;,'513»jms " K ' _
«.
Rf13v'#"'i3.('1'3:pe V},vR'I"fS'Co1cn'y"'~V--
Sh;akfl1inag'aj,_-Raichur _ _' Petitioners
(By Sn' (2 V Nages;;,".adv;)..V_"' . "
am Shana.-3 Hiremath
Eagadketvbistxict Respondent
(By ski Adv.)
This Petition is fixed under s.4s2 ofthe Cr.PC praying to
¢ _ dated 16.6.2005 in PC 13,2094 renumbemd as cc
279x200; before the Civil Judge & JMFC, Badami.
_ Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court
" the following:
ORDER
Petitioner hm sought for quashing the ” ” 2
IMFC in cc 279 s 2005 arising out ofPC :3 f 29:54
case mainst the petitioners for the oifcsice._”‘S.._420, 3ZPC’.’
A complaint was filed by one respmrdfifii the V’
petitioners stating that in 299; “she haévvmahv-ind the 1″
Petitioner and has a child out of ” Lv 7 2% life till 2003.
Thewafier she was _subj§c$ed On coming to
know that: v§as.”§m Asha, it is statnd, he has
committed iétfeafie m1d§{‘S;1%O7$~;.l 5, 420 and 494 IPC, a complaint was
filed. The swam statement of the complainant, has
fof Afhcnfifesacc under S420, EC agximst the
“:HezV:_¢’e» pct£”£io:;.”” v __
A tifé for the petitioner and the Government Picador.
, .. ~ r isvfiubmn’ ‘tied by flue petitioners’ counsel that flwre is no puma’ facie
the petitioners. Nothing has been revealed by the wiinazses to
‘T that Shanda was deceived and no such marriage of the 1’
‘ ” ” fietitiomr with Ash; has taken: place. Ihere is no iatxta of evidence even in like
sworn statement and there is no paima facie case. It is further submitted that,
(f/¢_…«
even ‘m respect of the 2″‘ petitioner, except a whisper
petitioner concealed the fact of earlier man-iage of the
nothing against him and there is no question of ” ‘
Per contra, counsel for the ram “ztsnt mime e:i:ai”‘:§:i锢s§sentia1″‘
ingredient of the oflencc has ma¢ie’o’ut 21$; maariage
of the 1” petitioner with one éatttplainmt and there
is a prima facie ofavsg-=;ja.*_:_£_i it 35; mo ‘rightly the learned
Maggi:-ate’ has of process.
In flie of Eet me consider whether the
impugxed pmceeiiéénjgstiequni iv’r¢’:§mi§u§sh§¢
” the cage, tlieieiiegation agams’ who I” petitioner is, without
marriage with one Asha, he has married the
her swam statement the complainant has spoken
.. jvivii”i_)_Vlii» the ovefteet of the 1″ petitioner in not disclos’mg the fact of earlier
Ftnther, thong: the allegation is made agaimt the 2″ petitioner mm
he has concealed the truth about the 1″ petitioner’s marriage with one Aisha,
J/V
«<1:
the fact remains nothing has been stated as xegmxs the 2″‘
accompanying Elm 1″ petitioner for the mazriage and at the
nztgutiations. Though the 2″‘ petitioner has stated that the ‘ V’
good character, there appears to be ‘
concealment of the 1″ petitioncfs earlier A. ‘
In the circumstances» ate *
issuing process against me 1’_’ petitioner
there are no details foxthcorttingzé-:3 case against him.
491,3′ 0,-g;,’,,’ part. The proceedmgs’ against the
2″ pefitionef”ig_’d1’oppx¢1. so:”i}ar<as 1" petitioner is concerned, there is a
pfima._§fat:ie.caae amt}: is for the trial court to p.-ocean in the matter in
I " 3 V Judge
Sfl/..