- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2276 CRL.P No. 200152 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200152 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. VEERESH @ VEERABHADRA S/O TIPPANNA NATEKAR, AGE:38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. VILLAGE KARADAKAL, TQ. SHORAPUR, DIST. YADGIRI–585224. 2. ERAMMA W/O VEERESH, AGE:32 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER, R/O. VILLAGE TALAWARGERA, TQ. SHORAPUR, DIST. YADGIRI–585224. 3. TIPPANNA S/O HANAMANTHRAYA NATEKAR, AGE:62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. VILLAGE KARADAKAL, TQ. SHORAPUR, DIST. YADGIRI-585224. 4. HANAMANTHRAYA S/O TIPPANNA NATEKAR, AGE:27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. VILLAGE KARADAKAL, TQ. SHORAPUR, DIST. YADGIRI–585224. 5. LAXMIBAI W/O TIPPANNA NATEKAR, AGE:60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. VILLAGE KARADAKAL, TQ. SHORAPUR, DIST. YADGIRI-585224. Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2276 CRL.P No. 200152 of 2025 6. NAGAPPA S/O AMARANNA KAKKERA, AGE:57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. VILLAGE TALAWARGERA, TQ. SHORAPUR, DIST. YADGIR –585224. 7. NINGAMMA W/O NAGAPPA KAKKERA, AGE:52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. VILLAGE TALAWARGERA, TQ. SHORAPUR, DIST. YADGIRI-585224. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI NANDKISHORE BOOB, ADVOCATE) AND: AKSHATA W/O VEERESH NATIKAR, AGE:33 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. VILLAGE KARADAKAL, TQ. SHORAPUR, DIST. YADGIR-585224. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VIJAYA MALLIKARJUNAPPA PATIL ,ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.(OLD) U/SEC 528 OF BNSS,2023 PRAYING TO, a) QUASH ANNEXURE-D THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2023 IN C.C NO.5504/2023 (PCR NO. 34/2023) WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT SHORAPUR FOR THE OFFENCE U/SEC 494 R/W 109 OF IPC (U/SEC 82(1) R/W 49 OF BNSS, 2023) AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AND PROCEEDINGS OF CASE. b) AND GRANT SUCH OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT AND PROPER BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION TO MEET. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2276 CRL.P No. 200152 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. This petition is filed by the petitioners who are accused Nos.1 to 7 and they have been charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 494 r/w 109 of IPC. These petitioners have challenged the order of taking cognizance dated 30.09.2023 in C.C No.5504/2023 (PCR No.34/2023) on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Shorapur. Factual matrix of the case: 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the respondent married accused No.1 on 08.05.2018 as per the customs prevailing in the community of both parties. It is stated that the respondent after giving birth to a female child, she had been subjected to cruelty both mentally and physically by accused No.1. It is further stated that accused No.1 was acting under the instructions of the other accused persons. The respondent further stated that accused No.1 was consuming alcohol, playing gambling and also he was a womanizer. The accused - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2276 CRL.P No. 200152 of 2025 used to insult her in public and he was not showing any respect to her. 3. The allegations against these petitioners are that these petitioners have performed the second marriage of accused No.1 with accused No.2 and the first marriage of accused No.1 has not been dissolved. Hence, a case came to be registered against these petitioners before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the said offences on 30.09.2023. Hence, this petition seeking to quash the order of taking cognizance. 4. Heard Sri.Nandkishore Boob, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Vijaya Mallikarjunappa Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. 5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the entire case is based on the statement of the respondent and another witness. Even the statement of the respondent did not disclose as to how many members were present in the said alleged second marriage of accused No.1. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2276 CRL.P No. 200152 of 2025 6. It is further submitted that another witness, namely, Sharanappa had stated in the statement that the marriage was being performed with accused No.2 near Mouneshwara Temple. He saw that accused No.1 was marrying accused No.2. However, he did not disclose how many members were present in the said marriage. Such being the fact, it would be very difficult to ask the petitioners to face the trial. Therefore, the petition has to be allowed and proceedings against the petitioners has to be quashed. 7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State vehemently submitted that the averments of the private complaint would indicate that the petitioners were present in the marriage and the second marriage of accused No.1 has been witnessed by independent witness, namely, Sharanappa. The same was informed to the respondent, who had filed a complaint. Therefore, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings of the petitioners. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Trial Court in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2276 CRL.P No. 200152 of 2025 taking cognizance against these petitioners, the Trial Court took cognizance for the offences under Sections 494 r/w 109 of IPC. The allegation made against these petitioners is that accused No.1 married accused No.2 as his second wife during the subsistence of the first marriage. Accused Nos. 3 to 7 are the relatives of accused Nos.1 and 2, they instigated accused No.1 to marry accused No.2 as a second wife. 9. On perusal of the sworn statement of the respondent, she is a hearsay witness. She was not present at the time of the alleged marriage. Even the sworn statement of Sharanappa, who is said to be the independent eye witness did not disclose as to whether these petitioners were present in the said marriage or not. Mere mentioning the names of the petitioners in the FIR in the private complaint does not give any fruitful result. Moreover, in the absence of proper evidence as to whether these petitioners were present or not, it would be difficult to bring them to face the trial. Hence, it is appropriate to quash the proceedings. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2276 CRL.P No. 200152 of 2025 10. In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. ii) The order of taking cognizance dated 30.09.2023 and further proceedings in C.C No.5504/2023 (PCR No.34/2023) on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Shorapur, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NB/UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65 CT:PK