Gangappa vs Kalvari Claiming As W/O Gangappa … on 15 July, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA
CIRCUET BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 16" DAY OF JULY 2088

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.s.PAcHHA§UR£gff; =
CRIMINAL ?ETITION No.28lO 9; g9§3 »_'

BETWEEN:

1. Gangappa,

S/0. Gurunath Kalennavar,
Aged about 32 years, "
R/at Mugalkhod,

Tq: Mudhol,

Dist: Bagalkote.

2. Shankanawa}cV," %=_'a_ ._
W 0-  GaI19a£>r>a A ?<alenna1ra:*
Aged ahmk 25 yeaHm* ""
Avged dfi1¢.32 yearshj
R/at,Mwfiflkhod,5 "

Tq; Mudhflq "

"'«_ Dist; axgakotéj """ " 

 '"Ya"maIuia,w:.._' 'A 9  "

"_W[Q-"GfimxmthVKalennavar,
Aged abbutA35 years,
R/at,fiQ¢fikhod,
Tq:»Mu§mfl4

 "nQist:~Exfilkote.

"_§¢'G0find &%akuraki,

'Aged abmm 35 yeamm
 R/at Tuhmfigeri,
Tq. Andlfistz Bagalkote.



5. Annawwa,
W/0. Govind Batakurki,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at Tulasigeri,
Tq. & Dist. Bagalkote.

6. Mayawwa,

Sfo. Laxman Karaparappagol,
Aged about 55 years,

R/at Mugalkhod,

Tq. Mudhol,

Dist. Bagalkote.

7. Mahadev,  "K

S/o. Laxman Karepa;appagQ;}a_'

Aged about 32 yearsfi
R/at Mugalkhod, ' "
Tq: Mudhol, . V
Dist: Bagalkote. ,w~_".V

Somaling, _ _--~q_ ._, »_
S/o. Laxman Karepara§pagcl, a.
Aged about 27"yeaf3,_ ' ' 'w
R/at Mugalkhoépy_ V

Tq: Mudh¢l,;' '.w,

Dist: Bagalkote.-- '"

Bhimappa, .__  
S/0. Laxmas Karéparappagol,

affiged 3b®up_22 years,.M ....
IR/at.MugalkhQd{

Tq:,Mudho;;= a _
Dist:,§agaikoté,g

Mayawwa, _,
w/o. Karep9a'Kafili,

:f~aged 25 ygars,
"r}at 3;ddapur, Tq. Jamakhandi,
=Dist,»Bagalkote.

w{Kéréppa,
uS?o; Hanamanth kadli,

figed 32 years,

 "R/at Siddapur,

Tq. Jamkhandi, Dist. Bagalkote.



2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this

petition are as under:

The respondent herein is the wife «of, the ,1':

petitioner, who is accused No.1 before the Trial Courts

and the other yetitioners are accused Nos§2 to 121 It

is the allegation of the complainant that her eorriage
took place with accused deg} about 4 years prior to
the complaint. It ois also aalleged 'thati dowry of
Rs.50,000-O0 was given in addition to two tola of gold
and later accused fioiidxatyjthel instigation of his
mother/accosedu:§oi3;t,sister$roocused Nos.5 and 10
started harassing the complainant insisting for demand
of more dofiry aed as she did not fulfil the demand,

started _harassment and cruelty and therefore she was

'tompei1ea to go to her parent's home. It is further

ialieged ithat; accused No.1 married accused No.2 on

o1{o§}2eQ6¥jgt about 12.30 p.m. in the temple at

hfiamkhandi, in the presence of accused Nos.3 to 12. It

»is her allegation that during her life time, accused

-Is§g1 "has married the second accused and therefore,

* committed an offence punishable under Section 494 IPC.

The complaint lodged on these facts was registered by

54,,

 



';_£e5p§ndéfi: and though this matter was oosted today for

"V absent.

Ueykthe petitioners. Para 1 deals with the relationship
lief»: the accesed amongst each other and their

ld"relationship with the complainant. Para 3 refers to

the Trial Court in P.C. No.27/2006 {C.C. No.56/2007
after the Order impugned]. The said Order of taking
cognizance has been challenged before this *Court' by
the accused/petitioners herein on the idronnd lthat
there is no material before the_$rial cépgg fig eakel
the cognizance and that the provisions of Section_a94l
IPC are not attracted. has heen filed to
cause harassment to thé.§eéi£#0fl%reflo3It is also his

contention that the oomplainant does not disclose the
ceremonieé of the second marriage said to have been

performed end that the oroceedings are liable to be

quashed.

V39" , I heye" heard the learned counsel for the

hearingre,§heV_learned counsel for the petitioners

'".ޤ. "The copy of the complaint has been produced

54

 



7

marriage, I do not think that in the absence of any
such allegation, which constitute an offence, ,the

Trial Court was wrong in taking the cognizance againsfi

the said accused. So far as accused Nos,r,and 2 are *

concerned, it is alleged by the cooplainant that the
marriage was performed between then on fih$ said data,
in the temple, whereas accused No.3 is concerned, she
is the mother of accssed.5No}io;andr ma§7"be" that her
cresence would indicate ;same? instigation to accused
Mos.1 and 2 "to. undergo: theg sarriage. In the

circumstances, aasfl fare as taking "cognizance of the
offence against accused Nos;l to 3, I do not think any
illegality in the Order impugned. As regards the rest

of the accused,g there; are no allegations, which

__constitute$i anwgioffence and therefore taking of

l=oognizance_.against the said accused is illegal and

ieproper;i,in the circumstances, I proceed to pass the

V_followingE'.f

ORDER

The petition is partly allowed. The Order” of

;taking cognizance against accused Nos.4 to 12 is

quashed. The Trial Court shall proceed on with the

L

case as against accused Nos.1 to 3 and dispose of the

same in accordance with law.

Ksm*