- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1141 CRL.P No. 103562 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103562 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. CHINNAPPA DABADI WRONGLY MENTIONED AS SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. RAMESH MUNJI IN THE COMPLAINT, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER, R/O. MALGAR KATTI, NEAR SHANKARLING TEMPLE, BANAHATTI, NOW AT KADAPATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587301. 2. CHINNAPPA S/O. BASAVARAJ DABADI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESSMAN, R/O. LAXMI NAGAR, BANAHATTI, TQ. RABKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587314. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD, THROUGH PSI, TERDAL POLICE STATION, DIST. BAGALKOT-587315. 2. RAMESH S/O. IRAPPA MUNJI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER, R/O. BANAHATTI, TQ. RABKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587314. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2- DISPENSED WITH) B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.25 11:20:50 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1141 CRL.P No. 103562 of 2024 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO, QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CC NO.14/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANAHATTI, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 494, 197, 109 AND 34 OF THE IPC, SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.4 AND 5). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1/State. Service of notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with. 2. The second respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), alleging that the complainant is the husband of accused No.4, and from their wedlock, they have two children. It is further alleged that accused No.4 left the company of the complainant and did not return to continue marital life despite several requests. During the subsistence of the marriage between the complainant and accused No.4, accused No.4 is alleged to have married accused No.5 on 14.08.2008. It is also alleged that accused No.4 contracted the second marriage with accused No.5 to make unlawful gains and harass the complainant. Additionally, accused No.5 is alleged to have already married one Smt. Swati and has a daughter. 3. The complaint further alleges that accused Nos.1 to 3 instigated accused No.4 to practice adultery. The allegations - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1141 CRL.P No. 103562 of 2024 against accused No.2 include that, despite an order of arrest against accused No.5, he filed a suit for partition before the court at Vijaypura, showing the C/o address of accused No.2. It is alleged that accused No.5 abducted accused No.2 and kept her hidden in his house. 4. The learned Magistrate referred the matter to the jurisdictional police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the petitioners and other accused for offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 494, 197, 109, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Aggrieved by this, the petitioners have filed the present petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent/State. 6. Accused No.2 had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.102054/2019, and this Court, vide order dated 14.03.2022, quashed the impugned proceedings insofar as accused No.2 was concerned, by observing as follows: i. The charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for cognizable offences. However, the second respondent was required to file an affidavit along with the complaint, stating that the requirements of Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C. had been complied with. In the present case, the second respondent failed to file such an affidavit, rendering the complaint not maintainable. This is in line with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1141 CRL.P No. 103562 of 2024 ii. To constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, there must be a specific allegation that the petitioners intended to cheat the complainant. In the absence of such allegations, the charge sheet filed for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC is unsustainable in law. iii. The alleged marriage between accused Nos.4 and 5 took place on 14.05.2008 and was registered on 06.08.2015. However, the complaint was filed more than two years after the registration of the marriage without providing any plausible explanation for the delay. The absence of a reasonable explanation indicates that the complaint was filed with malice. 7. Accordingly, this petition also requires to be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order. The petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in CC No.14/2019 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Banahatti, insofar as they pertain to petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JTR Ct:vh List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1