Karnataka High Court
Nagappa And Ors vs Sumangala on 18 February, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1123
CRL.P No. 201499 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201499 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. NAGAPPA S/O BASAPPA KAARANUR,
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: EMPLOYEE OF HATTIE MINES,
AT POST: JETT COLONY, HATTIE CAMP,
R/O. RAMPUR BHUPUR,
TQ. LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR.
2. SHRIDEVI W/O NAGAPPA KAARANUR,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
AT POST: JETT COLONY, HATTIE CAMP,
R/O. RAMPUR BHUPUR,
Digitally signed TQ. LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR.
by SHIVAKUMAR
HIREMATH
Location: HIGH 3. SHANKRAMMA W/O BASAPPA KAARANUR,
COURT OF AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
KARNATAKA R/. VILLAGE KANNALLI, TQ. HUNASAGI,
DIST. YADAGIRI.
4. DEVAPPA S/O BASAPPA KAARANUR,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. VILLAGE KANNALLI, TQ. HUNASAGI,
DIST. YADAGIRI.
5. SHARANAMMA W/O MALLAPPA KERI,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. VILLAGE KANNALLI TQ. HUNASAGI,
DIST. YADAGIRI.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1123
CRL.P No. 201499 of 2024
6. MALLAPPA S/O BASAPPA KERI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. VILLAGE KANNALLI, TQ. HUNASAGI,
DIST. YADAGIRI.
7. BASALINGAMMA W/O AMARAPPA,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. RAMPUR / BHUPUR, TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHUR
8. SHIVABAI W/O AMARAPPA,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. RAMPUR / BHUPUR, TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHUR.
9. NIRMALA D/O AMARAPPA,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. RAMPUR / BHUPUR, TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHUR.
10. DEVAPPA S/O GOLAPPA KUMBAR,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. VILLAGE KANNALLI,
TQ. HUNASAGI, DIST. YADAGIRI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SUMANGALA W/O NAGAPPA KAARANUR,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R/O. VILLAGER KANNALLI, TQ. HUNASAGI,
DIST. YADAGIRI,
NOW AT R/. MANDEVAL, TQ. JEWARAGI,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585301.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. AMBIKA ISHWARRAJ CHOWDAPUR, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1123
CRL.P No. 201499 of 2024
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), U/SEC.
528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND
QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS IN CC NO. 13/2024 I.E. PCR NO. 10/2021 THE
OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 494, 511 R/W 149 OF IPC AND
CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.12.2024
PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SHORAPUR
ORDER SHEET OF CC NO.13/2024 IS MARKED AT ANNEXURE-B
TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCES ALLEGED AGAINST
THE PETITIONERS AND ALSO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS
THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
Petitioner Nos.1 to 10/accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10 and 11 are before this Court with a prayer to
quash the entire proceeding in C.C.No.13/2024 pending
before the Court of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC,
Shorapur, arising out of PCR No.10/2021, registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 494, 511 read with
Section 149 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1123
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that, the proceeding under Section 494 of Cr.P.C., can be
invoked only against the accused Nos.1 and 2 in the
present case and unnecessarily accused Nos.4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10 and 11 have been arrayed as accused in the present
case. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance
on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of S.Nitheen and others Vs. State of Kerala and
another, reported in 2024 INSC 420.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
has opposed the prayer made in the petition.
5. Perusal of the averments made in the first
information would go to show that, the marriage of the
respondent with the accused No.1 was performed about 15
years prior to the date of complaint. Allegation is made
that, after the marriage, accused No.1 was in a habit of ill-
treating the first informant. From the wedlock two children
were born to the couple. Even thereafter, accused No.1
was abusing and torturing the respondent and therefore,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1123
she had left the company of the accused No.1 and had
filed an application seeking maintenance from the accused
No.1. The said proceeding had ended up in a settlement.
Thereafter, the complainant came to know that, the
accused No.1 had contracted a second marriage with
accused No.2. The allegation against the accused person is
that, they had participated in the said marriage. Except
the said allegation, there is no material to show that, the
accused Nos.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11, knowing very well
that, the marriage of the accused No.1 with the
complainant was subsisting, had participated in the second
marriage of the accused No.1 with accused No.2. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chand Dhawan
(Smt.) Vs. Jawahar Lal and others, reported in (1992)
3 SCC 317, in paragraph No.9, has observed as follows:
9. "..............So far as other respondents are
concerned, it may be said that they had been
unnecessarily and vexatiously roped in. The allegations
in the complaint so far as these respondents are
concerned are vague. It cannot be assumed that they
had by their presence or otherwise facilitated the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1123
solemnization of a second marriage with the knowledge
that the earlier marriage was subsisting. The
explanation of the first respondent that the second
respondent has been functioning as a governess to look
after his children in the absence of the mother who had
left them implies that respondents 1 and 2 are living
together. In this background, the allegations made
against respondents 3 to 7 imputing them with guilty
knowledge unsupported by other material would not
justify the continuance of the proceedings against those
respondents."
6. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court even in the case of S.Nitheen and others
(supra). Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion
that, based on the averments made as against accused
Nos.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11 in the complaint which is not
supported with any other material, they cannot be asked
to stand trial for the offences punishable under Sections
494 and 511 read with Section 149 of IPC. Accordingly,
the following order:
ORDER
(i) The criminal petition is partly allowed;
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1123
(ii) The entire impugned proceeding in
C.C.No.13/2024 pending before the Court of
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Shorapur,
arising out of PCR No.10/2021, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 494, 511
read with Section 149 of IPC, stands quashed as
against only petitioner Nos.3 to 10/accused Nos.
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11;
(iii) The entire aforesaid proceeding as
against petitioner Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1
and 2 shall continue before the trial Court, in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
SVH
CT:PK
