{"id":165727,"date":"2010-01-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharati-g-bhat-vs-s-praveen-kumar-on-27-january-2010"},"modified":"2015-04-28T00:37:25","modified_gmt":"2015-04-27T19:07:25","slug":"bharati-g-bhat-vs-s-praveen-kumar-on-27-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharati-g-bhat-vs-s-praveen-kumar-on-27-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Bharati G Bhat vs S Praveen Kumar on 27 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Bharati G Bhat vs S Praveen Kumar on 27 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: K.N.Keshavanarayana<\/div>\n
IN Tl-'IE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED T1 {IS THE 27\"\"? DAY OF JANUARY. 2010\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HONBLE3 M'R.JUsT1(:1~: K.N.KES1\"iAVANARAY.Z\u00a7NA=--_\n\nCRL.R.P.NO.68i \/2005 C\/W CRL.P.NO.1    \n\nIN CRL.R.P.N0.68 1 \/2005:\nBETWEEN:\n\nBHARA'i'I G BHAT V\nW\/O PRAVEEN KUMAR  _ V   \nNO 468\/21. 26TH MA1N';v..O3'9OL1c\u00a3\u00ab: STATION\n_ ;\\r:_A:N\"R:OA1). PUTFUR SK\n\"  _ 5.742401 ' \n\nK2  :~1A\\fIi1'A;'\n C'\/OS PRAVEEN KUMAR\n,. ADVOCATE. OPP POLICE STATION\n\nMAIN ROAD\n\n PUTTUR SK\n='574201\n RESPONI)E\u00a3N'I'S\n\n(By Sri: K CHANDRANA'I'I\"i ARIGA. ADV. FOR R1)\n\nTi-\"-\u00a5'IS CRLRI' FEI,1\u00a7I_.) U\/53.397 R\/W 401 CR.P.C BY\nTIIE ADVOCATE') FOR '1\"I-'IE3 PI:ITiTiON ER PRAYING 'l'i\"\"~EAT\nTHIS \u00a3OION'E3LI*Z COURT MAY F3113 PLEASEI7) TO SET ASIDE\n\n\n\nTI\"Ei'*I ORDIER OF '1'?-EEC S.J.. l).K.. MANOALOIQIE. }j)T.2.3.05 EN\nCRL.R\u00a5'.I\\\u00a7O.248\/O4 TO T}--E153 }f3X'I'ENT OF SE'1'E'ING ASEDE\n'i'HE ISSUANC E 01' TI-\"i\ufb01l PROCESS TO 'E'I\"{}.1 2ND\nRESPONDENT HEREIN AND TO CONFIRM TPIE ORDER OI'\nTHE JMFC. PUTTUR. IN C.C.NO. 1408\/O4 DT.4~.9.04. \n\nIN CRL.I'.N0. 1 172\/2005:\nBETWEEN:\n\nS PRAVEEN KUMAR\n\nMAJOR. S\/O B.S.POOJARY   ._\nOPP.POE..ECI\u00a3 STATION\nMAIN ROAD\n\nPUTTUR 574 20: [).K. _ ..   * ~  \n\n* '   Pv\u00a3a'1?1jOnOVNr::R\n\n[By Sri: K CHANDRANATH AR}O}3,.,:_E\\l)_V.} \nAND: O. O .\nBHARATHI. G r3r\u00bb1Ar.Pf_  '\n\nNO.468_.\/;2.;_. \"EST EFLOOR  'V 3\n26TH ';v1A1z\u00a75A;~A'2_f9it'r*i CROSS A ' \n\n1'91';-:1 3LO':::<.JAY'A&AO;AR\n\u00a33.ANOAi,OI21c; 560.. 969 \n\n RESPOND EN'?\n\n  (E3fy'3'~srg.;f}{.V 1~I{\u00a7\u00a7G ~~E+'AI)V. FOR  1. Bi\u00bb~1AT. ADV.)\n\n.. " FILED U\/S482 CR.P.C BY THE\nADV'OCA'FLi ROI-2 '11\u00bb-na: PETITIONEIR PRAYING THAT THIS\n\nH'O\u00a2N'BL.;:: _OC.--OUm' MAY BE PLEZASED TO QUASH TH-E\nCRH'-AENAL'PROCEEI)ENGS EN P(:.NO.91\/04 OT.-4.9.04 ON\n\n  '1':-\u00ab\u00a312 m_.iiE OF TI-{IE ADDL. C.J [JR.DN} & (J3\/IFCU PUTTUR\nAmi) SET ASEDEJ THE ORDIEZR IN CRL.RP.NO.2-48\/04\n"'--Ofr.2_\/3\/05 ON THE FILE 0}? THE E ADOL.s .J..\n\n'MANOALOR13. D.K..\n\n'1"E':e..se CIrI.R.I3' $2 CrE.l~' ('?()111i1'1g on for DEC'1'A'l'ENC':\nORDERS On this day. the (',TO1.l?'1 made the E'O1lOw1'ng:\u00bb\n\n53:;\n\n\n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
As conlmon qt.1esti<)1'1s of Fact. and law arisgts For
\nc0nsic1e1'at.i0i1 in both these petitions. the maitei's
\ntogether and am b(:'.il'1g disposed of by this   T\n<\/p>\n
2. The facts leading to the filing of  are
\nundeh M V t<\/p>\n
81141.. G.Bhe11’at.hi G.Bhat;t’i_l\u20acd et’p1.”:i’w.1te c\u00e9ttririgallf\u00e9tiiii,
\nSection 200 of Cr.P.C agaliisltvVS;l3rave\u00e9h.V_ four<\/p>\n
ot.hers alleging 0i’fer1ce.:s’s }’3.;{111islft\u00e9tl3’le:’:iii1\\’Ci\u00e9*.r Sectvivdlilf\u00e9gct of lPC<\/p>\n
inter .(f{)r1teii;d’i:1_githat _Vtl”L.iring E994 slle gained
\na(rqL1aiVi1_tal1c.:<3'x,vit4l*t"a:;1ld.\u20acj1′.’:a’i1u11it.y anal the l1′}&’t1’I’EElgC was scheduled to be held on<\/p>\n
V ‘v_H23%5.l1.2OOl and after comii’1g to know this. she lodged a<\/p>\n
C01’1’11)I21ii’1t’ bel”0n: police. I**l()\\.ve.ve1′. police did not t\u00e9lk\ufb02f any<\/p>\n
\/3 \/’<\/p>\n
action on the said coinplairit and subsequently. she learnt
\nthat \u00a31(.’.(‘,E,IS\u20ac(Z1 No.1 has iiizwried Smt..I—Izwitha who is E1(.'(.’LES\u20acC1
\nNo.2 herein on 22.11.2001 it seif. in Gokamdnatheshwara<\/p>\n
temple in Kudroli. Maiigaitire and the said :’1’121rz”.iag2:’iyas<\/p>\n
attended by acetised Nos. 3 to 5 who are re121tixresmo1’~3;g:s:tiggjd’ _<\/p>\n
No.2. Thus 2311 the accused have <.:0:1irn_it:.ii'e\u00ab.__:'\u00a3;he'=_oi7\u00a3enee"V<\/p>\n
punishable under Section 494 o1'1F?C.\n<\/p>\n
3.<\/p>\n
complaint, took eognizance   the<\/p>\n
Complaint; and after 1’e-eording”‘t.he’–sworn st:e1t:e.ment of the<\/p>\n
(TOI11f)1g’5111’i1aV1\u00a31i” 211.1%)’ t’_h’e_1’wit:iess’es produced by her. heid
\nthat the_re’.gti’e st,ii’*t7i’e~:’ent._.gi<oLi.nds to proceed against. accused
\nNos. 1 &"2_oniykmti.th.a1t_;1he1'e are no grotinds to proceed<\/p>\n
age-ii;-gisivt. aeetised. 3 to 5, ('0!'1S\u20acql.l\u20ac111'.1y. complaint agetirist<\/p>\n
1"se(\u00a7t:sed"No's.\u00ab_3 to 5 came t.o be 1'eject.ed and c::'iim'na1 case<\/p>\n
\\'va.s1V':=egistc:'Ved_ Lft.g,;"e1ii1st. accused Nos. 1 8:. 2 for the offence<\/p>\n
\u00a7')';1:i':shaif)ief'j_uiider Section 494 of IPC and process was<\/p>\n
ordeiredito be issued against, them. After coming to know of<\/p>\n
 the-~.o1'der directing issue of pmcess agz:i1'1:~:.t: them, accused<\/p>\n
";~io"s."1 <31 2 \ufb02ied C1'1.R.P.N<).2-48\/2004 before the Iearned<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge. Mazigalore. UK. The said petit.ion came to<\/p>\n
be aiiowed in part by order dat.ed 2.3.2005 hoicling that the<\/p>\n
The ieamed Magistrate V'u'po–a_'1 presef1tai:'iox3"–~.Aof_V<\/p>\n
order of the Me1gist.i'-ate issuing process against aeet.ised No.2
\nfor the oiienee punishable under Section 494 of IPC is __bad in
\nlaw since no n12~1t.eriai is produced to att.raet
\nunder Section 494 of {PC Theret'ore. the  .\n<\/p>\n
Judge set. aside the order issuingi.\n<\/p>\n
No.2. however. aiiirined the order
\nBeing aggrieved by the OI’d\u20acJ’:’1’Ef_EV\u20acCt.ii;ig_ his ;)1-.g\u00a7\u00bb\ufb02P{i:
\naside the order issuing process.x;ig:iVinst”.i’1i.ii\u00e91He1L7ei;ised No.1<\/p>\n
has presented  Section 482 oi”\n<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C seeking to quasiftheide1*ii1ii’f1~ai”pijoeeedings against<\/p>\n
him. Being “t)rdeVr”vpe-gziesed by the learned<\/p>\n
SessioinsidivJue1,;ge “se’ti.in*g”‘s.side””i.he order of the teamed<\/p>\n
Magistit-at.e._ issL1in’g.V’i;;roeess against accused No.2. the<\/p>\n
c()n’1pIai11aiit. ‘hz1s’._pi~ese~nt.ed revision petition No.68]\/O5,<\/p>\n
 L1rjd’eij_Se\u00a3TVti0i1  Cr.P.C. Under these eireuinst’c1nees<\/p>\n
‘ .boi–h A;.’)’e-t.it.ions were heard together and had been<\/p>\n
‘disposed  this common order.\n<\/p>\n
 The-.p’i”inc’ip]e as to the exer’eise ofjtlrisdietion under<\/p>\n
‘ ..Se.c:t.ioi’1= 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the complaint and criminal<\/p>\n
>_pi”:;<f'eedings has been well settied by e2tte1'1a of decisions of<\/p>\n
.—-the S1.ipi'eme Court". in the ease of M\/s. Indian Oil<\/p>\n
Corporation Vs. NEPC India Limited reported in (2006) 6<\/p>\n
0"'.\n<\/p>\n
SCC 736 the I”lon’ble Supreme Court after refetring to
\nvarious \u20acE1I”Ii\u20ac1′ decisions on the point’ has set out the relevant
\nprinciples to be borne in mind while exercising potttetfetttgler<\/p>\n
Section 482 of Cr.P.C as under:\n<\/p>\n
“(HA complaint: can be vqiia;s–hed*_’ Lol.1e_rev ‘.tIhe’–f7
\nallegations made in the cot7’1plAait1:t:.eueit -t_’ y\/”they are-._
\ntaken at their face value and a.::eepted’ .ir1’~tlteir,_'”~
\nentirety, do not prirtta’\/fact’.e constitttize any’oj\ufb02enee ;
\nor make out the case allegedyagaihst the accitsed; ‘<\/p>\n
For this purpose. :lI.1′–3\u20ac.y.’VCOt7’t}3_i(1ir1l  to be
\nJxamined, as a ttghole, DLLl_Lt):it’E.}1OLvll” examining the
\nmerits of the al’legeat,it;rts;;. .Ne’i.t”her  a detailed<\/p>\n
enquiry nor a meticttlotts .analy’;s~ts Qt”; the material
\nnor an _”asses.srhertt. Qf’.j.t’heV- ~reliab1flit’y or
\ngenttincsnessyq.-of the alleyatior1s’–.ittvthe complaint’, is
\nLuarramted i’tgf.gl1,ile e.i\u00a7amini;ig.fi’prayer for quashing
\nQ\/’a \u00e9~or\ufb02;\ufb01l6l~fri.t_\u00a7 .   :\n<\/p>\n
q ._ {ii} A Cotnpllaittt.-..tnr:1y also be quashed where
\nit’ t’s,a clear abtltsse ‘off the process of the court. as
\ntt,\u00bbhen”..tl1e Verltnir-_al’~~~proeeeding is f\ufb01utmcl to have<\/p>\n
1 i been i’r:.t’ttated with malafi.des\/ malice for<\/p>\n
 tttrea.lcing t5ettg\u20acat1\u00a3’e or to cause harm or where<\/p>\n
_ the _allegat:i.ons are absurd and inherently
\n”  im,o’robable.\n<\/p>\n
&.  {i.il}’t.’l”he power to quash shall not however,
\nbe \u00e9tseeitl to style or scuttle a legitimate
\npvro;-;.ee~i.tt”iori1. The power should be used sparingly
\n..ah-:1 with abttndant cat.1t”i.on.\n<\/p>\n
.i {iv} T he complaint is not required to
\n verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the
\nQffence alleged. If the necessary factual
\nfo1.mdat:’i.on is laid in the complaint.. merely on the
\nground that ct _\/ett! i.r1_qredien.ts have not been
\nstated in d.et.ail, the proceedings should. not be
\nquashed. Qttashing of the cornplat.nt’ is
\ntt.tarra.t’t.ted only 11,’-lI\u20acl”<3 the complaint' is so bereft
\nof even the basic: facts t.t=lu'eh. are absolutely<\/p>\n
rteeessaryfor tttalmig out the ryf"\/'ehc:e.\n<\/p>\n
iv} A given.  Qf’_f’act’s make out (a) purely a
\ncivil ilrrong or {b} purely a Criminal offence or (C) a
\ncivil wrong as also a crriminal Qfjencre.\n<\/p>\n
commercial transaction or a contractual dlS[)LlI’fif’.”‘”7
\napart’ from _\/’u.rnishi.rig a cause of action _.jbj*-, ‘~
\nseeking remedy in civil law, may also i.r’1oo.l._u_e
\ncriminal offence. As the nature and scopz\ufb01 Qf”aIf– ‘7’
\ncivil proceedmgs are ah\ufb02eren.l from a dc-a:in1inal’
\nproceeding, the mere fact that t.he”‘C(;n*–1ip!at’ii.t
\nrelates to a commercial Iirarisactliorgor b.reaci2._Qf” ‘
\nCont.raei., ‘for which a civil rer\u00bb:iedgg~ise’ available
\nhas been availed, is not byiiselj’ a gror.ind ‘low. l’
\nquash the criminal p:’oeeedings_. ‘ The ‘ie;s.!.__is
\nwhether the allegations ‘t”.*~1_>.VI’h(:’ complaint :'(?lis’elose
\na criminal ojfence or not. ”  ”\n<\/p>\n
This View has been re~it:e–raied’.in\u00a7six.b.se(;neni decisions also.<\/p>\n
5. In’  (lo\ufb01emment of Karnataka
\nreported in  a larger Bench of the Apex
\nCourt in lp21_il’le1.8lll1_as;_vobserved that qiiashing of complaint<\/p>\n
uzidervsiet\u00e9tion of Cr.P.C depends on the facts and<\/p>\n
“i3\u00a7I”C’t:_3″I1\u00e9a?:’c’1l’1_(‘f(‘3S._ of each case. In this decision ii has been<\/p>\n
 ei&pll\u00e9iiz1_e’\u20acl_ t’li\u00e9i'{i._tl_f:e expressions used in several decisions that<\/p>\n
the powei*I,_7 has to be exercised “sparingly and<\/p>\n
 c_ircunJspeciion”, and in “rarest. of rare cases” only mean that<\/p>\n
  i’li~e..4_povl\u00bb?ex’ under Section 482 of Cr.P.C should not be used<\/p>\n
l2.n1e–:’.liaz1i<:ally but with care and caution only when a clear<\/p>\n
. evcase for qunshing is made out and l'21ilui'e to inteifere would<\/p>\n
lead to Inis~c,211'i'iage ol'ja.:st.ice.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6. In the ezitse on hand. a1(7(1ordi:o1g to the Complaint
\nallegations there was love affair between the eomp_la.1__ir1ant<\/p>\n
and accused No.1 from 1994 and ultimately their”:ii’1v:ti*ri\u00e9tge<\/p>\n
was solemnmed on 15.7.2001. Thus 21c7crc:–r{li:1gTVl’to”the V’<\/p>\n
complainant”. she is the legally we_cEeled_4wilTe a1rl1’Ci’e–l:vclurlr1gvVtl’1.e<\/p>\n
subsistence of the said marriage  No..l”‘has\u00abn\u00e9a~r;’le\u00a3l<\/p>\n
accused No.2 and thus he h’as'”e.o1m11i’t:*.ed .the..vot’l3eVtt’ee. zinderw ‘<\/p>\n
Section 494 ol’lPC. _    ”\n<\/p>\n
7. The learned Magist_rate.*whi’ie ;t,aki.nAg eogrtizanee of the<\/p>\n
ollenee”hy”a1e\u00a7fpIyiit’g’ his._fadiei_<5't.i's mind to the allegations
\nmade  the V(:():11p"l'aiVrii.\u00ab._.h-aselouncl t.hat there are sufficient<\/p>\n
grounds to"r.takeVc.–ogA1\u00e9_izla1icre of the offence alleged against<\/p>\n
  E1c.:ftl'se;d.VN:)_.l z1r1tii'o–:–1~the basis of the sworn st.atemer1t of the<\/p>\n
 ' c~.oi'n;)l\u00a3tvi.r1a;jt\u00bbanti her witnesses has found that there are<\/p>\n
s;1l'l'ieier1t*\ufb01'}a\u20ace:'ie1l to proceed against accused No.1. No<\/p>\n
 doubt. e'-Jen before the learned Sessions Judge. as well as<\/p>\n
 belere this court. accused No.1 eontermleci that. there is no<\/p>\n
:'\u00a71a1'ria1ge bet.ween him and the cromplainant and that the<\/p>\n
eomplainant is not his legz::lly wedded wife and therei'ore.<\/p>\n
offence under Section 494 is not made out. as such the order<\/p>\n
lElkil'1g eogr1i7.2'.1nCe and issuirtg process  bad in law. The<\/p>\n
X'!<\/p>\n
she\u00bb\/'<\/p>\n
l"a(".t as to wlietliei' there  a valid marriage or not has to be
\ndecided after a full pleclgecl trial. The eomplainarlt  made
\nallegations in her complaint that she is the legally wedded<\/p>\n
wife of aetrused l\\lo.l and their niarriage was solem,ni;'_e'cl._V01":<\/p>\n
15.7.2001. She has also produced the 11ia1~ria_.ge"'Ceift  _<\/p>\n
issued to t.he Arehak of the Ra'ara'eswari..V_teml ;1e.._B"l'lV;'
\ny 3 3 _  _ A
\nLayout, Bangalore and also zteftain…15lf:.otog'1iap.11lS*,V.'-.wh.gChl
\nprima faeie shows t.hat they are h u.sbai1cl- and 1wi~}"e..VV Basedloxi
\nthese materials. in m 0 inior\ufb01tlie learited"ivi'a'fiS.t.1'&\\.t.e has
\ny p \u00ab. . ._ 5 ;\n<\/p>\n
rightly held that  are sLtz\u00a3’t’i.eielht.. grotilocle to take<\/p>\n
cognizance and to issue p1*0ees.i3’affai1-1.31″.’  No.1.<\/p>\n
8. N0 ‘–dot1bt;l:l:’-ash \u00bb.(:loan_t’.enlded by learned counsel for
\naccused No.l._t.he;’eIis” .116″ averment in the complaint with<\/p>\n
regaijd 1:.) the “ee;’e11ionies perlormecl during the alleged<\/p>\n
. ma1’1″1a_;ge.bet’ween himself and the e()mplaiI1ant to make it a<\/p>\n
ll 1i1’ai’i<i.age;'l I~Ioweve1'. the question as to whether all<\/p>\n
neeessary'e'e1'emor1.ies have been performed or not are all<\/p>\n
  m.\u20ac1tt.er\u00e93l"'oE' evidence to be brought on record cluring the trial.<\/p>\n
  ln a complaint of this I'1alt1I'E:'. one cannot expect a<\/p>\n
V .._eomplet.e pleading. as c1tontempl.ated in Civil Cases with 1":-;g21z'd<\/p>\n
to the ee1"e1n(311ies for a valid rnar1"lag. The allegations made<\/p>\n
in the complaint as well as the statement. made by the
\neonmlaineint. arid her witnesses on oath as also the
\ndocuments produced by her along with the complaint hprirna
\nfacie make out 21 case against accused No.1 for t.l_j.eVl_o:{:ll;e:1ce
\npunishable under Section 494 of IPC. It cannot, _
\nthe compiaint is a malafide one either to h&_ra’.3s: <\/p>\n
No.1 or to wreck vengeance against. }.~..:m’:. he “twol”e.ourts<\/p>\n
below have held that there are .”:-‘~”_L1[llwi(‘.il(;”,’.’}l’lI1E1l.(3\u00a7”llEl’l\u00a7\u00a7 to pr_c:acelecl_llle<\/p>\n
against accused No.1. No grol{rnci~_~:-_ai*e made’ out to differ
\nfrom the concurrent vi\ufb01\u00e9w’-..exp’res:seld~\u00ab.by_ the courts below. In
\nthis View of the matter this court  o”f~.tli’e_’jop’ir1ion that there<\/p>\n
are r1o’lln1eVi”itsf’in  n_l”t’,h’e contentio1’is of accused No.1. as<\/p>\n
such Cllrziminall Petit.ion.tii.l_e’dlb.y him deserves to be rejected.<\/p>\n
10. _ — Section .494 vol IPC reads  1I1\u00bb\u00e9lJE’aI’ “whoever having a<\/p>\n
11ti’sb\u00e91r52_d. o’i\ufb01wi.[e litling. marries in any case in which such<\/p>\n
  :+;…g.hrir-a;gc_.V_isl ltroidtby reason of its taking place during the kite<\/p>\n
ofsuch ‘l}..u’SbEt11d or wife. shall be punished with<\/p>\n
 impri.son’ment of either description for a term which may<\/p>\n
egyctend to seven years. and shall also be liable to fine.<\/p>\n
:\u00a7<\/p>\n
Reaadiiig of Section 494 inakes it. clear that the person who is<\/p>\n
liable to be pL.1r1ished under Se’ct1i.on 494 of IPC is either a<\/p>\n
@\/<\/p>\n
hL1SbE1I’1d or a wife 1n211’i’yi1’ig again during_; the life time of his<\/p>\n
o1’E’1e1’sp()t1se”. _\n<\/p>\n
11. in the ezise on hand the learned Sessioijs\u00bb.-Judge<\/p>\n
quashed the proceeding against accused No.2 on”tI1*1\u00e9..V_\u00a7\u00a7’–Tt3’L1ii1Ci’A<\/p>\n
that since no aE1egat.1’ons are made in the .c:v3n.1p1;1i’n..t’ to the\u00bb.<\/p>\n
effect that as on the aiteged date of I1121.K1fi&ivgti’–,,()I.J .a’c(:’L’:’::~eiv:l__ <\/p>\n
with accused No.1. aceL1sedgNo.2 had  Eixliitgtsgjottseg. the”*<\/p>\n
provision of Section 494 of IdI”‘C:d’iS_ not’aoVpi’ieah’te to her.
\nHaving regard to t:he pi:-ov._isio_’ns  494 ofHIPC. in my
\nopinion. the learned Sessionstilttdge:’w\u00e9ie..:jvLieti1″ied in holding<\/p>\n
that the dilteg\u00e9itioriu\u00e9i tiiehctorriptaint do not attract, the
\npiovisio-ns \u00abof; S*\u20acV(‘t’iVf\u00a7’I1’>V49_’4″‘Q[:”IpC against. accused No.2. No<\/p>\n
doubt. as4″=r’o’1it.e1’V:de(i  the learned coiinset for the<\/p>\n
 CO!itI:J1\u00a3ii.f1a}31’. OI1’Vt.t”E’C:”‘b\u00a3tSiS oi’ the ztllegations that accused<\/p>\n
 i’\u00ab.To.”}V _h3.s”niz1r1’ied acctised No.2 during the fife time of the<\/p>\n
.(.toiii[)I21iii.\u00e91’n]t..why virtue of Section 107 read with 109 of IPC.<\/p>\n
 a(:(:t1:–:\u00bbed}E\\to.2 cotiid be proceeded with for offence punishable<\/p>\n
 tinder’ Section 494 of WC. However. to attract t.he provisions<\/p>\n
of i0? react with Section 109. there sshoiild be eiverment in<\/p>\n
the (“(.)1’np1a-i.ii’it that, acctised No.2 as on the date of her<\/p>\n
:1’ie11*1’iage with ziccuseti No.1 had the ki’1c’)wte.dg;c that accused<\/p>\n
i\\Jo.i hats a s’spo1.1se living; and in spite of such knowledge. she<\/p>\n
has I’1’1E}.I’l’iCd 21em1:-‘sed No. i. Reaidimg of the (“()n”1[)!aint. as 21
\nwhole do not 1’ndieat.e that the eon1;)ia1inar1t has I1’1.’-41-tie any<\/p>\n
such a11e0’at.icms Jfainst. accused No.2 with ref\u00a3\u00a3rd'”toI_191’e:’<\/p>\n
knowledge of aeeuseci No.1 having a living s[){)’!;\u00a3%e.ai.s_Vo:it  V<\/p>\n
alleged date of her :h1’1ar1’iage with etcrfittb-ed  1-. EI\\?T’ii_)f be.’.thna\u00bbt.<\/p>\n
the eonlpkaialant, in her sworn st.at.ef’::1e~i’A. has ?1te~r.1 t\u00bbhe”1t_:”afte1i_<\/p>\n
searching For the telephone 1’1L:1_\ufb01be1′ of the gnjl<\/p>\n
to ma1′:’y accused No.51. $heAt.t-e1e’p_honed t,o’*t.he,*{3ride and<\/p>\n
1’nt’ormed the said bride”that  th’e.V;t1eg2st_1y wedded wife of<\/p>\n
accused No.1 axeidv {.11L1fa’W&i(1C1..t’S\u20acf}A,NO.2V.h\u00a3ta”‘{l}’1\u20ac knowledge of<\/p>\n
the n1a1’ria,ge.. oA1;’v__-.th*e:’ eo.rV1.’1p};_11;j’aa111t , with accused No.1.<\/p>\n
I–Iowe’fe1′ “zi”a3~sV{\u00a71:_11’eK?? r1o,”sueh \u00e9iire1*11’1ents is made in the
\neo1’1’1p1aVi’tt1t.A_ The’;!X[.)e\u00a7g:1i:\u00bb’:a\u00a3e1(*.e., the Ma1gist.r21t’e> <'o1.1ld<\/p>\n
'proceed to 1'e(?ord the st:at.emeI1t' of the (?omplai1'1a.mt. and<\/p>\n
witnesses on oz-1th.\n<\/p>\n
wh”o, “\\7V’as goin’ ‘<\/p>\n
12. Reading of Section 200 and 190 of Cr.P.C together
\nalso indicates that cognizance can be taken only on the basis
\nof t.he allegations made in the complaint and recording 01′
\nsworn statement. of the complainant and
\nshould precede the taking of cognizance. As__
\n190(1) of C1-.P.C.. the Magistrate can <\/p>\n
ofience upon receiving a con_1plai_i1t 3  “Ii’aets.–..’v.._which<\/p>\n
constitutes such offences. As per Section 20.0Yi.oi”‘Ci-.P\u00b0.1C:;r
\nMagistrate taking cognizance o’t’.a’r1 olience’onathefconiplaint
\nshall examine upon.  ‘oath flconie-pliainant and “Witnesses.<\/p>\n
Therefore, from the above?.iVt  stage of taking<\/p>\n
cognizan(ie”oftlie ‘Vr}:jVt;i”enl(‘:e,:’tthe l_\\l\/iagist.rat,e is required only t.o<\/p>\n
look into the al1egatiofis.. in the complaint. as well as me<\/p>\n
docun1eni:.s'”‘produCedA’aloilg with the complaint. ln the case<\/p>\n
   t.here ils’a—bscjltiteiy no allegation with regard to the<\/p>\n
‘ kn'(iwledgel_’o\u00a3’.laccused No.2 about accused No.1 having a<\/p>\n
living sgiousefas on the alleged date of her marriage with<\/p>\n
accus.edA,No.1. In the absence of any such averments in the<\/p>\n
 complaint or in the absence of any documents produced<\/p>\n
along with the complaint to show such knowledge on the<\/p>\n
l part of accusecl No.2. there were no rnaterials before the<\/p>\n
learned Magist.rat.e to take (tog,g;11iza11(:e oi’ the oi”i’encc under<\/p>\n
Section 494 of ll-3C with the aid of Section 107R\/Wsec\/O9 oi’<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Bharati G Bhat vs S Praveen Kumar on 27 January, 2010 Author: K.N.Keshavanarayana IN Tl-‘IE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED T1 {IS THE 27″”? DAY OF JANUARY. 2010 BEFORE THE HONBLE3 M’R.JUsT1(:1~: K.N.KES1″iAVANARAY.Z\u00a7NA=–_ CRL.R.P.NO.68i \/2005 C\/W CRL.P.NO.1 IN CRL.R.P.N0.68 1 \/2005: BETWEEN: BHARA’i’I G BHAT V W\/O PRAVEEN KUMAR _ […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-165727","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBharati G Bhat vs S Praveen Kumar on 27 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharati-g-bhat-vs-s-praveen-kumar-on-27-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bharati G Bhat vs S Praveen Kumar on 27 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharati-g-bhat-vs-s-praveen-kumar-on-27-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-27T19:07:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharati-g-bhat-vs-s-praveen-kumar-on-27-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharati-g-bhat-vs-s-praveen-kumar-on-27-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bharati G Bhat vs S Praveen Kumar on 27 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-27T19:07:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharati-g-bhat-vs-s-praveen-kumar-on-27-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3012,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharati-g-bhat-vs-s-praveen-kumar-on-27-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharati-g-bhat-vs-s-praveen-kumar-on-27-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharati-g-bhat-vs-s-praveen-kumar-on-27-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Bharati G Bhat vs S Praveen Kumar on 27 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-27T19:07:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharati-g-bhat-vs-s-praveen-kumar-on-27-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharati-g-bhat-vs-s-praveen-kumar-on-27-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharati-g-bhat-vs-s-praveen-kumar-on-27-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bharati G Bhat vs S Praveen Kumar on 27 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bharati G Bhat vs S Praveen Kumar on 27 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharati-g-bhat-vs-s-praveen-kumar-on-27-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bharati G Bhat vs S Praveen Kumar on 27 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharati-g-bhat-vs-s-praveen-kumar-on-27-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-27T19:07:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharati-g-bhat-vs-s-praveen-kumar-on-27-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharati-g-bhat-vs-s-praveen-kumar-on-27-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bharati G Bhat vs S Praveen Kumar on 27 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-27T19:07:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharati-g-bhat-vs-s-praveen-kumar-on-27-january-2010"},"wordCount":3012,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharati-g-bhat-vs-s-praveen-kumar-on-27-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharati-g-bhat-vs-s-praveen-kumar-on-27-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharati-g-bhat-vs-s-praveen-kumar-on-27-january-2010","name":"Bharati G Bhat vs S Praveen Kumar on 27 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-27T19:07:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharati-g-bhat-vs-s-praveen-kumar-on-27-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharati-g-bhat-vs-s-praveen-kumar-on-27-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharati-g-bhat-vs-s-praveen-kumar-on-27-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bharati G Bhat vs S Praveen Kumar on 27 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/165727","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=165727"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/165727\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=165727"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=165727"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=165727"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}