Shekhar Irappa Baddur vs Sri.Ashok S/O Ramanna Balehosur
2022 Latest Caselaw 1311 Kant

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                       DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 31TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

                             BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

                    CRL.P NO 100494 OF 2021

BETWEEN

SHEKHAR IRAPPA BADDUR
R/O. BADDUR ONI,BANAHATTI,
TQ. RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI,
DIST. BAGALKOT.
                                                 ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S C BHUTI, ADV.,)

AND

SRI.ASHOK S/O RAMANNA BALEHOSUR
AGE. 41 YEARS,OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. RAHAMATH NAGAR,
JAMKHANDI,DIST. BAGALKOT 587314.
                                                ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.A.R.PATIL, ADV.,)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI IN C.C.NO.01/2020
(P.C.NO.5/2019) DATED 16/01/2020 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER
/ A16 IS CONCERNED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S.494,
497, 323, 504, 420, 114 R/W SEC.34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE.


      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                        2




                                 ORDER

1. Petition arises out of the case registered in

PCR.No.5/2019. On 16/1/2020 against the petitioner for the

offences punishable under Sections 494, 497, 323, 504, 420,

114 R/w. Section 34 of IPC pending in C.C.No.1/2020.

2. Heard Sri.S.C.Bhuthi, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri.A.R.Patil, learned counsel for the

respondent.

3. The petitioner is accused No.16 and in relation, the

maternal uncle of accused No.1. Facts that lead to filing of

the complaint by the husband invoking Section 200 of Cr.P.C.

is that marriage between the husband and wife-Smt.Savita

took place on 11/2/2004. On 3/5/2017, a complaint is

registered by the wife that the husband is threatening her

and her family members either by phone or by writing letters.

This results in wife filing the criminal miscellaneous petition in

Crl.Misc.No.128/2017 before the JMFC, Banahatti invoking

Section 12 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005 and also sought for maintenance at the

hands of the respondent-husband. After initiation of the

aforesaid proceedings, the husband registers a complaint on

9/4/2019 against the petitioner and several others under

Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under

Sections 494, 497, 323, 504, 420, 114 R/w. Section 34 of

IPC. On 16/1/2020, the learned Magistrate takes cognizance

of the offences aforesaid, which drives the petitioner to this

Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that the respondent-husband files a complaint

alleging bigamy by the wife who is not a party to these

proceedings. The allegation in the complaint does not point at

any act of the petitioner and the petitioner is only a

participant in the alleged marriage which is allegedly

bigamous and no other role is attributed to the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent would submit that the petitioner-accused No.16-

maternal uncle did accompany the wife for the alleged

bigamous marriage and therefore he is guilty of the offences

that are alleged in the complaint.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the material on record.

7. The husband registers the complainant against the

wife. There are several proceedings between the husband

and wife which are not germane for consideration of the

present lis. The complaint is registered by the husband

invoking Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the wife alleging

bigamy and against the petitioner the allegation is that he

was present at the scene of marriage and has showered

sacred rice upon the couple and has also blessed the couple.

It is for this reason, the allegation under Sections 323, 504

and 420 of IPC are alleged against the petitioner.

8. The principal allegation of the husband against the

wife is bigamy. If the allegation is of bigamy it is for the

complainant and the accused to tender such evidence that

would drive home the allegation or otherwise.

9. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, he is only a

participant in the alleged marriage. According to the

respondent-complainant, the complaint also narrates that

accused Nos. 3 to 21 have blessed the couple and on that

ground, the allegation for the aforesaid offences is made out.

There is no role indicated in the complaint that could drive

home any of the offences alleged against the petitioner-

accused No.16-maternal uncle of the wife.

10. The Apex court in the case of Bajanlal V/s.

State of Haryana reported in 1992 supp (1) SCC 335, has

laid down the postulates for interference by this Court in

exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the

Apex Court has held as follows:

           102. In       the    backdrop       of    the
       interpretation     of   the   various   relevant

provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by

this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable

offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3)    Where         the        uncontroverted
  allegations    made       in    the   FIR    or

complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is

sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

11. In the light of the judgment rendered by the

apex court even if the act of the petitioner is construed to be

true it would not amount to an offence as aforequoted. If

criminal proceedings are permitted to be continued on the

strength of the complaint it would result in miscarriage of

justice and degenerate into harassment into petitioner.

12. For the aforesaid reasons the following:

ORDER

i) The criminal petition is allowed. The

proceedings in CC.No.1/2020 pending before the Prl.

Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamkhandi against the

petitioner stands quashed.

ii) It is made clear that the observations

made in the course of this order shall not influence or

bind the competent court on further proceedings

against any other accused.

SD JUDGE Vb/-