IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 14"' DAY OF OCTOBER A'
BEFORE
THE HONv13LE MR. JUSTICE IILILUVAI)'I;CQ;EAM_ESII ' " A
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3e0S OF '
BETWEEN:
1
THIMMEGOWI::A_
S/O GOPALAIAH _
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS A
OCC AGRICUTLURE;R]O.':'KADE.§I'ALLI
VILLA£}E;:;D'ABBE¢jATTAV_PIOBIJ,
LTIIRU€fEKEIé"E ' A
TUMKURDISTRICTI .\ A
JAYANTH1-_ A
g "D/.0 NANJAMARICOWDA
" AGED AB'OUT«29 YEARS
RJO .s'i1E1*r1§1ALL1 VILLAGE
~ V' T_ . NUGGEHALLI HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA
" S. "i"ALU£~§,"HASSAN DISTRICT
Z KL SIDDALINGEGOWDA @ THAMMAIAH
~ I T S/O LINGEGOWDA
' AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
= R/O KADEHALLI VILLAGE
DABBEGATTA HOBL.I, TURUVEKERE
TUMKUR
LAKSHMIDEVI
W/O K L SIDDALINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/O KAEEIIALL1 VILLAGE =
DABBEGATTA IIOELI, TURUVEKER'E«.1jj'»I I
TUMKUR I
NANJAMARIGOWDA, U
s/0 MAYANNA ' "
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARIIA
occ AGRICULTURE . 'I
R/AT sHETTIIIAjLf_LI VILLAGE,
NUGGEHALLI EGBLI,-CHANNIARAYAPATNA
TALUK, HASSANI~DI'ST'R.1CT' «A ~
w/G NAf*{.JA§V§ARi§.C)W.hDAI.: A
:_0CC T'AC;RWICUL.T'URE % I
*R/AT SHETTIEEAI-LEE' VILLAGE
I\IU_GGEjH.ALLI IIGBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA
TALUR, IIAs;~:A1-I, IJISTRICT
A RAJ_AN'.ANA« .@.._RANGEGOWDA
SJGLATE THIMMEGOWDA
I _ "A_GED_'ABOUT 59 YEARS
I . AGRICULTURE
R/AT; S'HE'I'T1HALLI VILLAGE
NUGGEHALLI LHOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA
" TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT
JAYANTIII @ JAYAMMA
W/O RAJ ANNA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W
1}
OCC AGRICULTURE
R/AT SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE
NUGGEHALLI HOBLI, CHANN ARAYAPATNAY-_
TALUK, EASSAN DISTRICT I
KUMARA
S/O NANJAMARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
OCC AGRICULTURE
R/AT SHETTIHALLIVILLAGE'--_ ' * -
NUGGEHALL} HOELI; C.HANN.ARAYII»1§P;§x5El$IVA.Ti
TALUK, I-IASSAN DISTRICT
SANNAEUTTA @3~~..SAN'NAPUfI?I'E.G0WD'AA
S/O NANJAMARiGOWf1)A:.
AGED ABOUT 35H_YE.AP[_S j
OCC AGR:l'C.ULTURE~;
R/AT S?_HE':FTIH.ALLI1VIL'LAGE-------~'
NUGGEHALL1 HQ_--BL~I,_CHANNARAYAPATNA
~I)ISi'§ICT
M;AN.IEGQfiiD,Av'".::A'.
S/O"NANJEGOWD..A
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
A OCC AGRICIILTURE
RIO HONNENAHALLI GRAMA
_ BE}LL'UR*~HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK
1VI.:5IN§)Y;{ DISTRICT
MAI~.II'ULA
MANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
L R/O IIONNENAHALLI GRAMA
BELLUR HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
R"
13
GOWRAMMA
W/O NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YERAS
R/O VARAHASANDRA, KASABA-HOBLI T
GUBBI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT
NINGAMMA
W/O GOPALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
OCC AGRICULTURE _
R/O KADEHALLI vILI.AGE
DAEEEGATTA HOBLI
TURUVEKERE TALUR
TUMKUR DISTRICT V ~ PETITIONERS
(By SriD NAGARAJ,ADV'}I _ SS
AND
:<;cRADEA A
W/0 THIMMEGOWDA.ff.I'
AGED ABOUT 3'4"YEARS
R{U'«:KEADEHALLIvVILLAGE
; DAEBEIG ATTA HOBLI
_ VTU'RU7V_EKEREuTALUK
" TUMKLTVR._D£S'TRICT
RESPONDENT
(By PUTTEGOWDA, ADV)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED US. 482 CR.P.C BY THE
V.”VS–..A1)f\ui’OCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT
THIS
TI~1E ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE
HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH
R”
PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.274/08 (PCR.NO.17/08) ON THE
FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JRDN) & }’MFC.,
TURUVEKERE, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S494, 5€34>.9R/W
SECTION 34 OF IPC.
“fins cRnnNAL HNTHON coNHNG”oNCFoRo
ADMISSION Tins DAY, THE COUR’I’__”MADEi’ ‘m1~:$
FOLLO”HNG> _i_%
oRDERiWi
On the private compIa,int..V_fi1ed otiize “§ife’s’pVondent4’Vi’
complainant against the petitione_1’s,”‘*-after ‘recording sworn
statement, the learned Magistitatei haSii’~tfake1:._ cognizance and
issued;Votoc_eseffo§ onnishabie under Sections 494
and 50?? of “are accused Nos.1 to 14 in the
congpiaint fiIed._ Remove, this petition seeking for quashing the
p-roccevdiitigfe”pending in C.C.No.274/O8 before the Civil Judge
Turuvekere.
I Heard.
W/,
3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners
neither the ingredients of Section 494 or 594 is made out and
mechanically, the learned Magistrate has recorded._i4the’_’s’worn
statement and issued process, which is erroneousv_and’i-llegal. it
4. Per~contra, the learned aopearing.
respondent has submitted tl;af~._gythe petition_ers’1»ihaVe all
participated in the eoinrnissinoinii intiie offeraicel and also
threatened the cVomp1aina_ri’t._Va:idi the ingredients of
Section 494 .aire’hv_1a’de :_io11t”iind—rthere is no scope for
interference. V i
Itmis al’lege_d_..tl!v1at on 27.1.08 around 11.30 am. the 13′
:petitiAon.er~ ivduiring the subsistence of the marriage with the
c’o_mplainant_ has entered into second marriage with the 2″
petitioiie1i’ and that petitioners 3 to 1.4 have participated in the
‘sa._ic_l:5rriarriage. When the complainant and other witnesses went
/. question the same, she was abused and an attempt was also
W
7
made to assault her and as such, she went to lodge a complaint
before the jurisdictional police, but they did not register the
case. Thereafter, the complaint came to be filed by the
complainant against the petitioners.
6. It is seen that the specific allegation_isatlgainstaiaccused-…
Nos.1 and 2 and that the other acciised,_ha.}iela1l.:
the marriage of accused No.”l_ with accused No.21 ‘during
subsistence of the rnarriageg_____n:/g’ith”a.the lcomplairiant. The
complainant said to halve’ iapprofacihed ‘Tnruvekere police
station”–w1″iereinlhe[rcomrjiaiiit’Was not entertained and as such,
she filed S looking into the complaint and the
gstatcimentllit’ is—seen that the ingredients in the complaint
and’tE1e*sV§vofn:statement is not sufficient enough to attract the
petitioners 3 to 14.
oltagacas. Sections 494 and 504 of IPC as against
}X*/
7. In the circumstances, petition is aiiowed in part. The
proceedings initiated as against petitioners 3 to 14 inftaking
cognizance of the offences and issuing S..’.«.’.~.’.1’1’i_i’}f;.)__’J;t$V.j”VVAiIlA
C.C.No.274/08 before the Civii Judge
Turuvekere is quashed. However, the ieati2e’d_1\}1ag-ist1=ate__shall
proceed against petitioners 1 andg, in accordance’Vi{ith_law.
Bkp. ”