- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3656 CRL.P No. 200388 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200388 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. MADIWALAPPA S/O NINGAPPA MONTAGI @ NADUKAR, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KANAGUDIHAL, TQ. SINDAGI, C/O MADIWALAPPA JETAPPA PUJARI, ITAGA, TQ. JEWARGI, DIST. KALABURAGI. 2. SATAMMA W/O MADEWALAPPA MONTAGI @ NADUKAR, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O KANAGUDIHAL, TQ. SINDAGI, C/O MADIWALAPPA JETAPPA PUJARI, ITAGA, TQ. JEWARGI, DIST. KALABURAGI. 3. IRANNA S/O MADEWALAPPA MONTAGI @ NADUKAR, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KANAGUDIHAL, TQ. SINDAGI, C/O MADIWALAPPA JETAPPA PUJARI, ITAGA, TQ. JEWARGI, DIST. KALABURAGI. 4. MEENAKSHI W/O IRANNA MONTAGI @ NADUKAR, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O KANAGUDIHAL, TQ. SINDAGI, C/O MADIWALAPPA JETAPPA PUJARI, ITAGA, TQ. JEWARGI, DIST. KALABURAGI. Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3656 CRL.P No. 200388 of 2024 5. BHAGAMMA W/O SHIVALINGAPPA BULLA, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KERUTAGI, TQ. DEVARA HIPPARGI. 6. SHIVALINGAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA BULLA, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KERUTAGI, TQ. DEVARA HIPPARGI. 7. LAXMIBHAI W/O MADEWALAPPA PUJARI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O ITAGA, TQ. JEWARGI, DIST. KALABURAGI. 8. SANGAMMA W/O KERAPPA POLICEPATIL, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O MUUNATAGI, TQ. JEWARGI, DIST. KALABURAGI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI CHAITANYAKUMAR CHANDRIKI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH REPRESENTED BY, ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI-585102. 2. SMT. PAVITRA W/O NINGAPPA MONTAGI @ NADUKAR, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O KANAGUDIHAL, TQ. SINDHAGI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1; SRI SANGOLI NAGANNA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SURESH C. TENGALI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3656 CRL.P No. 200388 of 2024 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO, QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.10.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SINDAGI IN (P.C.R. NO.58/2023) C.C. NO.3274/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 494, 109 R/W 34 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Chaitanyakumar Chandriki, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State and Sri Sangoli Naganna, learned counsel for Sri Suresh C. Tengali, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer: “Therefore, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindagi in (P.C.R. No: 58/2023) C.C. No: 3274/2023 for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3656 CRL.P No. 200388 of 2024 the offences punishable U/Sec. 494, 109, R/w 34 of IPC in the interest of Justice and Equity.” 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: A private complaint came to be lodged by respondent No.2 herein on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindagi which was registered in PCR No.58/2023 alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 494, 420, 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners herein. 4. Gist of the complaint averments are that: Respondent No.2 is married to accused No.1 on 26.04.2016 in Matoshree Tengemma Desai Kalyan Mantap at Kalkeri village, Devara Hipparagi Taluk. At the time of marriage, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was given as the customary articles and Rs.2,00,000/- cash and 25 grams gold and Rs.1,50,000/- worth of household articles were given as dowry. After brief period of happy married life, there was a girl child born to the couple by name, Shreya. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3656 CRL.P No. 200388 of 2024 5. After the birth of the girl child, there were several differences between accused No.1 and respondent No.2 and practitioner Nos.2 to 10 used to physically and mentally harass respondent No.2 and they were trying to obtain a consent divorce and when respondent No.2 failed to offer her consent, they have forcibly conducted the second marriage of accused No.1 and therefore sought for action. 6. Learned Trial Magistrate after recording the sworn statement, on appreciation of the contents of sworn statement and the documents placed on record, by passing a detail order, took cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused and directed the office to register the case and summon the present petitioners. 7. The said order of taking cognizance and registering the criminal case is called in question in this petition. 8. Sri Chaitanyakumar Chandriki, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the petition vehemently contended that the present petitioners - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3656 CRL.P No. 200388 of 2024 except accused No.1 are no way connected with alleged second marriage and they have been falsely implicated in the case and sought for quashing of the pending criminal proceedings. 9. Sri Sangoli Naganna, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 supports the order of taking cognizance as well as summoning the petitioners. 10. Sri Jamadar Shahbuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that since a case came to be registered on account of private complaint, there is no role to be played by the State. 11. Having heard the arguments on both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, the learned Trial Magistrate has noted prima facie materials which would attract the offence under Section 494 of IPC at least. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3656 CRL.P No. 200388 of 2024 13. Whether at all there was an element of cheating or not, cannot be decided by this Court at this stage by holding a mini trial as is held in catena of judicial pronouncements. 14. Needless to emphasise that the next stage in the pending criminal case is to record the evidence before charge and at that juncture, petitioners have got a chance to place their defence before the Court. 15. If the petitioners fail in such an attempt and suffer an adverse order, it is always open for them to challenge such order. 16. Reserving such liberty for the petitioners, the following order is passed: ORDER The Criminal Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28 CT:PK