Bharati G Bhat vs S Praveen Kumar on 27 January, 2010

V ‘v_H23%5.l1.2OOl and after comii’1g to know this. she lodged a

C01’1’11)I21ii’1t’ bel”0n: police. I**l()\.ve.ve1′. police did not télkflf any

/3 /’

action on the said coinplairit and subsequently. she learnt
that £1(.’.(‘,E,IS€(Z1 No.1 has iiizwried Smt..I—Izwitha who is E1(.'(.’LES€C1
No.2 herein on 22.11.2001 it seif. in Gokamdnatheshwara

temple in Kudroli. Maiigaitire and the said :’1’121rz”.iag2:’iyas

attended by acetised Nos. 3 to 5 who are re121tixresmo1’~3;g:s:tiggjd’ _

No.2. Thus 2311 the accused have <.:0:1irn_it:.ii'e«.__:'£;he'=_oi7£enee"V

punishable under Section 494 o1'1F?C.

3.

complaint, took eognizance the

Complaint; and after 1’e-eording”‘t.he’–sworn st:e1t:e.ment of the

(TOI11f)1g’5111’i1aV1£1i” 211.1%)’ t’_h’e_1’wit:iess’es produced by her. heid
that the_re’.gti’e st,ii’*t7i’e~:’ent._.gi<oLi.nds to proceed against. accused
Nos. 1 &"2_oniykmti.th.a1t_;1he1'e are no grotinds to proceed

age-ii;-gisivt. aeetised. 3 to 5, ('0!'1S€ql.l€111'.1y. complaint agetirist

1"se(§t:sed"No's.«_3 to 5 came t.o be 1'eject.ed and c::'iim'na1 case

\'va.s1V':=egistc:'Ved_ Lft.g,;"e1ii1st. accused Nos. 1 8:. 2 for the offence

§')';1:i':shaif)ief'j_uiider Section 494 of IPC and process was

ordeiredito be issued against, them. After coming to know of

the-~.o1'der directing issue of pmcess agz:i1'1:~:.t: them, accused

";~io"s."1 <31 2 flied C1'1.R.P.N<).2-48/2004 before the Iearned

Sessions Judge. Mazigalore. UK. The said petit.ion came to

be aiiowed in part by order dat.ed 2.3.2005 hoicling that the

The ieamed Magistrate V'u'po–a_'1 presef1tai:'iox3"–~.Aof_V

order of the Me1gist.i'-ate issuing process against aeet.ised No.2
for the oiienee punishable under Section 494 of IPC is __bad in
law since no n12~1t.eriai is produced to att.raet
under Section 494 of {PC Theret'ore. the .

Judge set. aside the order issuingi.

No.2. however. aiiirined the order
Being aggrieved by the OI’d€J’:’1’Ef_EV€Ct.ii;ig_ his ;)1-.g§»flP{i:
aside the order issuing process.x;ig:iVinst”.i’1i.iié1He1L7ei;ised No.1

has presented Section 482 oi”

Cr.P.C seeking to quasiftheide1*ii1ii’f1~ai”pijoeeedings against

him. Being “t)rdeVr”vpe-gziesed by the learned

SessioinsidivJue1,;ge “se’ti.in*g”‘s.side””i.he order of the teamed

Magistit-at.e._ issL1in’g.V’i;;roeess against accused No.2. the

c()n’1pIai11aiit. ‘hz1s’._pi~ese~nt.ed revision petition No.68]/O5,

L1rjd’eij_Se£TVti0i1 Cr.P.C. Under these eireuinst’c1nees

‘ .boi–h A;.’)’e-t.it.ions were heard together and had been

‘disposed this common order.

The-.p’i”inc’ip]e as to the exer’eise ofjtlrisdietion under

‘ ..Se.c:t.ioi’1= 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the complaint and criminal

>_pi”:;<f'eedings has been well settied by e2tte1'1a of decisions of

.—-the S1.ipi'eme Court". in the ease of M/s. Indian Oil

Corporation Vs. NEPC India Limited reported in (2006) 6

0"'.

SCC 736 the I”lon’ble Supreme Court after refetring to
various €E1I”Ii€1′ decisions on the point’ has set out the relevant
principles to be borne in mind while exercising potttetfetttgler

Section 482 of Cr.P.C as under:

“(HA complaint: can be vqiia;s–hed*_’ Lol.1e_rev ‘.tIhe’–f7
allegations made in the cot7’1plAait1:t:.eueit -t_’ y/”they are-._
taken at their face value and a.::eepted’ .ir1’~tlteir,_'”~
entirety, do not prirtta’/fact’.e constitttize any’ojflenee ;
or make out the case allegedyagaihst the accitsed; ‘

For this purpose. :lI.1′–3€.y.’VCOt7’t}3_i(1ir1l to be
Jxamined, as a ttghole, DLLl_Lt):it’E.}1OLvll” examining the
merits of the al’legeat,it;rts;;. .Ne’i.t”her a detailed

enquiry nor a meticttlotts .analy’;s~ts Qt”; the material
nor an _”asses.srhertt. Qf’.j.t’heV- ~reliab1flit’y or
genttincsnessyq.-of the alleyatior1s’–.ittvthe complaint’, is
Luarramted i’tgf.gl1,ile e.i§amini;ig.fi’prayer for quashing
Q/’a é~orfl;fil6l~fri.t_§ . :

q ._ {ii} A Cotnpllaittt.-..tnr:1y also be quashed where
it’ t’s,a clear abtltsse ‘off the process of the court. as
tt,»hen”..tl1e Verltnir-_al’~~~proeeeding is ffiutmcl to have

1 i been i’r:.t’ttated with malafi.des/ malice for

tttrea.lcing t5ettg€at1£’e or to cause harm or where

_ the _allegat:i.ons are absurd and inherently
” im,o’robable.

&. {i.il}’t.’l”he power to quash shall not however,
be étseeitl to style or scuttle a legitimate
pvro;-;.ee~i.tt”iori1. The power should be used sparingly
..ah-:1 with abttndant cat.1t”i.on.

.i {iv} T he complaint is not required to
verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the
Qffence alleged. If the necessary factual
fo1.mdat:’i.on is laid in the complaint.. merely on the
ground that ct _/ett! i.r1_qredien.ts have not been
stated in d.et.ail, the proceedings should. not be
quashed. Qttashing of the cornplat.nt’ is
tt.tarra.t’t.ted only 11,’-lI€l”<3 the complaint' is so bereft
of even the basic: facts t.t=lu'eh. are absolutely

rteeessaryfor tttalmig out the ryf"/'ehc:e.

iv} A given. Qf’_f’act’s make out (a) purely a
civil ilrrong or {b} purely a Criminal offence or (C) a
civil wrong as also a crriminal Qfjencre.

commercial transaction or a contractual dlS[)LlI’fif’.”‘”7
apart’ from _/’u.rnishi.rig a cause of action _.jbj*-, ‘~
seeking remedy in civil law, may also i.r’1oo.l._u_e
criminal offence. As the nature and scopzfi Qf”aIf– ‘7’
civil proceedmgs are ahfleren.l from a dc-a:in1inal’
proceeding, the mere fact that t.he”‘C(;n*–1ip!at’ii.t
relates to a commercial Iirarisactliorgor b.reaci2._Qf” ‘
Cont.raei., ‘for which a civil rer»:iedgg~ise’ available
has been availed, is not byiiselj’ a gror.ind ‘low. l’
quash the criminal p:’oeeedings_. ‘ The ‘ie;s.!.__is
whether the allegations ‘t”.*~1_>.VI’h(:’ complaint :'(?lis’elose
a criminal ojfence or not. ” ”

This View has been re~it:e–raied’.in§six.b.se(;neni decisions also.

5. In’ (lofiemment of Karnataka
reported in a larger Bench of the Apex
Court in lp21_il’le1.8lll1_as;_vobserved that qiiashing of complaint

uzidervsietétion of Cr.P.C depends on the facts and

“i3§I”C’t:_3″I1éa?:’c’1l’1_(‘f(‘3S._ of each case. In this decision ii has been

ei&plléiiz1_e’€l_ t’liéi'{i._tl_f:e expressions used in several decisions that

the powei*I,_7 has to be exercised “sparingly and

c_ircunJspeciion”, and in “rarest. of rare cases” only mean that

i’li~e..4_povl»?ex’ under Section 482 of Cr.P.C should not be used

l2.n1e–:’.liaz1i<:ally but with care and caution only when a clear

. evcase for qunshing is made out and l'21ilui'e to inteifere would

lead to Inis~c,211'i'iage ol'ja.:st.ice.

6. In the ezitse on hand. a1(7(1ordi:o1g to the Complaint
allegations there was love affair between the eomp_la.1__ir1ant

and accused No.1 from 1994 and ultimately their”:ii’1v:ti*riétge

was solemnmed on 15.7.2001. Thus 21c7crc:–r{li:1gTVl’to”the V’

complainant”. she is the legally we_cEeled_4wilTe a1rl1’Ci’e–l:vclurlr1gvVtl’1.e

subsistence of the said marriage No..l”‘has«néa~r;’le£l

accused No.2 and thus he h’as'”e.o1m11i’t:*.ed .the..vot’l3eVtt’ee. zinderw ‘

Section 494 ol’lPC. _ ”

7. The learned Magist_rate.*whi’ie ;t,aki.nAg eogrtizanee of the

ollenee”hy”a1e§fpIyiit’g’ his._fadiei_<5't.i's mind to the allegations
made the V(:():11p"l'aiVrii.«._.h-aselouncl t.hat there are sufficient

grounds to"r.takeVc.–ogA1é_izla1icre of the offence alleged against

E1c.:ftl'se;d.VN:)_.l z1r1tii'o–:–1~the basis of the sworn st.atemer1t of the

' c~.oi'n;)l£tvi.r1a;jt»anti her witnesses has found that there are

s;1l'l'ieier1t*fi'}a€e:'ie1l to proceed against accused No.1. No

doubt. e'-Jen before the learned Sessions Judge. as well as

belere this court. accused No.1 eontermleci that. there is no

:'§1a1'ria1ge bet.ween him and the cromplainant and that the

eomplainant is not his legz::lly wedded wife and therei'ore.

offence under Section 494 is not made out. as such the order

lElkil'1g eogr1i7.2'.1nCe and issuirtg process bad in law. The

X'!

she»/'

l"a(".t as to wlietliei' there a valid marriage or not has to be
decided after a full pleclgecl trial. The eomplainarlt made
allegations in her complaint that she is the legally wedded

wife of aetrused l\lo.l and their niarriage was solem,ni;'_e'cl._V01":

15.7.2001. She has also produced the 11ia1~ria_.ge"'Ceift _

issued to t.he Arehak of the Ra'ara'eswari..V_teml ;1e.._B"l'lV;'
y 3 3 _ _ A
Layout, Bangalore and also zteftain…15lf:.otog'1iap.11lS*,V.'-.wh.gChl
prima faeie shows t.hat they are h u.sbai1cl- and 1wi~}"e..VV Basedloxi
these materials. in m 0 iniorfitlie learited"ivi'a'fiS.t.1'&\.t.e has
y p «. . ._ 5 ;

rightly held that are sLtz£’t’i.eielht.. grotilocle to take

cognizance and to issue p1*0ees.i3’affai1-1.31″.’ No.1.

8. N0 ‘–dot1bt;l:l:’-ash ».(:loan_t’.enlded by learned counsel for
accused No.l._t.he;’eIis” .116″ averment in the complaint with

regaijd 1:.) the “ee;’e11ionies perlormecl during the alleged

. ma1’1″1a_;ge.bet’ween himself and the e()mplaiI1ant to make it a

ll 1i1’ai’i<i.age;'l I~Ioweve1'. the question as to whether all

neeessary'e'e1'emor1.ies have been performed or not are all

m.€1tt.eré3l"'oE' evidence to be brought on record cluring the trial.

ln a complaint of this I'1alt1I'E:'. one cannot expect a

V .._eomplet.e pleading. as c1tontempl.ated in Civil Cases with 1":-;g21z'd

to the ee1"e1n(311ies for a valid rnar1"lag. The allegations made

in the complaint as well as the statement. made by the
eonmlaineint. arid her witnesses on oath as also the
documents produced by her along with the complaint hprirna
facie make out 21 case against accused No.1 for t.l_j.eVl_o:{:ll;e:1ce
punishable under Section 494 of IPC. It cannot, _
the compiaint is a malafide one either to h&_ra’.3s:

No.1 or to wreck vengeance against. }.~..:m’:. he “twol”e.ourts

below have held that there are .”:-‘~”_L1[llwi(‘.il(;”,’.’}l’lI1E1l.(3§”llEl’l§§ to pr_c:acelecl_llle

against accused No.1. No grol{rnci~_~:-_ai*e made’ out to differ
from the concurrent vifiéw’-..exp’res:seld~«.by_ the courts below. In
this View of the matter this court o”f~.tli’e_’jop’ir1ion that there

are r1o’lln1eVi”itsf’in n_l”t’,h’e contentio1’is of accused No.1. as

such Cllrziminall Petit.ion.tii.l_e’dlb.y him deserves to be rejected.

10. _ — Section .494 vol IPC reads 1I1»élJE’aI’ “whoever having a

11ti’sbé1r52_d. o’ifiwi.[e litling. marries in any case in which such

:+;…g.hrir-a;gc_.V_isl ltroidtby reason of its taking place during the kite

ofsuch ‘l}..u’SbEt11d or wife. shall be punished with

impri.son’ment of either description for a term which may

egyctend to seven years. and shall also be liable to fine.

:§

Reaadiiig of Section 494 inakes it. clear that the person who is

liable to be pL.1r1ished under Se’ct1i.on 494 of IPC is either a

@/

hL1SbE1I’1d or a wife 1n211’i’yi1’ig again during_; the life time of his

o1’E’1e1’sp()t1se”. _

11. in the ezise on hand the learned Sessioijs».-Judge

quashed the proceeding against accused No.2 on”tI1*1é..V_§§’–Tt3’L1ii1Ci’A

that since no aE1egat.1’ons are made in the .c:v3n.1p1;1i’n..t’ to the».

effect that as on the aiteged date of I1121.K1fi&ivgti’–,,()I.J .a’c(:’L’:’::~eiv:l__

with accused No.1. aceL1sedgNo.2 had Eixliitgtsgjottseg. the”*

provision of Section 494 of IdI”‘C:d’iS_ not’aoVpi’ieah’te to her.
Having regard to t:he pi:-ov._isio_’ns 494 ofHIPC. in my
opinion. the learned Sessionstilttdge:’wéie..:jvLieti1″ied in holding

that the diltegéitioriuéi tiiehctorriptaint do not attract, the
piovisio-ns «of; S*€V(‘t’iVf§’I1’>V49_’4″‘Q[:”IpC against. accused No.2. No

doubt. as4″=r’o’1it.e1’V:de(i the learned coiinset for the

CO!itI:J1£ii.f1a}31’. OI1’Vt.t”E’C:”‘b£tSiS oi’ the ztllegations that accused

i’«.To.”}V _h3.s”niz1r1’ied acctised No.2 during the fife time of the

.(.toiii[)I21iii.é1’n]t..why virtue of Section 107 read with 109 of IPC.

a(:(:t1:–:»ed}E\to.2 cotiid be proceeded with for offence punishable

tinder’ Section 494 of WC. However. to attract t.he provisions

of i0? react with Section 109. there sshoiild be eiverment in

the (“(.)1’np1a-i.ii’it that, acctised No.2 as on the date of her

:1’ie11*1’iage with ziccuseti No.1 had the ki’1c’)wte.dg;c that accused

i\Jo.i hats a s’spo1.1se living; and in spite of such knowledge. she

has I’1’1E}.I’l’iCd 21em1:-‘sed No. i. Reaidimg of the (“()n”1[)!aint. as 21
whole do not 1’ndieat.e that the eon1;)ia1inar1t has I1’1.’-41-tie any

such a11e0’at.icms Jfainst. accused No.2 with ref££rd'”toI_191’e:’

knowledge of aeeuseci No.1 having a living s[){)’!;£%e.ai.s_Vo:it V

alleged date of her :h1’1ar1’iage with etcrfittb-ed 1-. EI\?T’ii_)f be.’.thna»t.

the eonlpkaialant, in her sworn st.at.ef’::1e~i’A. has ?1te~r.1 t»he”1t_:”afte1i_

searching For the telephone 1’1L:1_fibe1′ of the gnjl

to ma1′:’y accused No.51. $heAt.t-e1e’p_honed t,o’*t.he,*{3ride and

1’nt’ormed the said bride”that th’e.V;t1eg2st_1y wedded wife of

accused No.1 axeidv {.11L1fa’W&i(1C1..t’S€f}A,NO.2V.h£ta”‘{l}’1€ knowledge of

the n1a1’ria,ge.. oA1;’v__-.th*e:’ eo.rV1.’1p};_11;j’aa111t , with accused No.1.

I–Iowe’fe1′ “zi”a3~sV{§1:_11’eK?? r1o,”sueh éiire1*11’1ents is made in the
eo1’1’1p1aVi’tt1t.A_ The’;!X[.)e§g:1i:»’:a£e1(*.e., the Ma1gist.r21t’e> <'o1.1ld

'proceed to 1'e(?ord the st:at.emeI1t' of the (?omplai1'1a.mt. and

witnesses on oz-1th.

wh”o, “\7V’as goin’ ‘

12. Reading of Section 200 and 190 of Cr.P.C together
also indicates that cognizance can be taken only on the basis
of t.he allegations made in the complaint and recording 01′
sworn statement. of the complainant and
should precede the taking of cognizance. As__
190(1) of C1-.P.C.. the Magistrate can

ofience upon receiving a con_1plai_i1t 3 “Ii’aets.–..’v.._which

constitutes such offences. As per Section 20.0Yi.oi”‘Ci-.P°.1C:;r
Magistrate taking cognizance o’t’.a’r1 olience’onathefconiplaint
shall examine upon. ‘oath flconie-pliainant and “Witnesses.

Therefore, from the above?.iVt stage of taking

cognizan(ie”oftlie ‘Vr}:jVt;i”enl(‘:e,:’tthe l_\l/iagist.rat,e is required only t.o

look into the al1egatiofis.. in the complaint. as well as me

docun1eni:.s'”‘produCedA’aloilg with the complaint. ln the case

t.here ils’a—bscjltiteiy no allegation with regard to the

‘ kn'(iwledgel_’o£’.laccused No.2 about accused No.1 having a

living sgiousefas on the alleged date of her marriage with

accus.edA,No.1. In the absence of any such averments in the

complaint or in the absence of any documents produced

along with the complaint to show such knowledge on the

l part of accusecl No.2. there were no rnaterials before the

learned Magist.rat.e to take (tog,g;11iza11(:e oi’ the oi”i’encc under

Section 494 of ll-3C with the aid of Section 107R/Wsec/O9 oi’

W