- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12756 WP No. 15486 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.15486 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PREETI NAYAK W/O. SRI SANDEEP NARAYAN NAIK AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.31, KMS HOMES CHOCOLATE FACTORY MAIN ROAD 1ST CROSS, CASHIER LAYOUT THAVREKERE, BENGALURU-560 029 2. SRI GOPINATH ANNA DORAI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT MARUTHI KRUPA # M.R. 25, 3RD FLOOR 4TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN ROAD, BTM 2ND STAGE OPP. SHANTHINIKETAN SCHOOL BEHIND BTM LAYOUT WATER TANK BENGALURU-560 076 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI M. A. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE, (ABSENT)) AND: SRI SANDEEP NARAYAN NAIK S/O. SRI NARAYAN NAIK AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT VIVEKANAGA, KUMATA TALUK UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581 343 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI MALLANNA, ADVOCATE FOR; SRI UMASHANKAR F. MEGUNDI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12756 WP No. 15486 of 2019 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE J.M.F.C., AT KUMTA (ANNEXURE-"E"). THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged an order dated 28.11.2018 passed by the JMFC, Kumta, (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') in P.C.No.214/2016 by which, cognizance was taken for an offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. (i) The respondent herein filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. contending that he had married the petitioner No.1 on 29.01.2012. He claimed that petitioner No.1 was then working with Sling Media at Bengaluru. He claimed that petitioner No.1 left her employment and joined him at Kumta and lived with him for three to four months. Later, she lived with him at Pune but left the matrimonial home without any reason on 24.02.2014. He claimed that while in Pune, petitioner No.1 had joined Wipro Company and worked there till November, 2013 and she was - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12756 WP No. 15486 of 2019 transferred to Bengaluru branch in April, 2014. He contended that the petitioner No.1 had concealed her employment status from him. He claimed that during November, 2015, she joined Honeywell Technology Solutions Ltd., Bengaluru as a Senior Engineer where petitioner No.2 was also working. (ii) The respondent claimed that the petitioner No.1 used to quarrel with him over trivial things and used to go to her parents house. He claimed that thereafter elders in the family convinced the petitioner No.1 to join him at Kumta and accordingly, she joined him at Kumta. Even there, she misbehaved with the members of his family and without his consent, she continued to work at Honeywell Technology Solutions Ltd., Bengaluru. He claimed that the petitioner No.1 in order to harass him, filed a case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, where the Court after full-fledged enquiry, dropped the case against him. He claimed that the petitioner No.1 challenged it in Crl.A.No.100/2015, which was also dismissed. He claimed that the petitioner No.2 used to accompany petitioner No.1 to Kumta where they used to stay outside. He alleged that petitioners were residing at Hubballi and Dharwad. He claimed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12756 WP No. 15486 of 2019 that his family members thereafter came to know that petitioner No.1 had an illicit relationship with the petitioner No.2. The respondent claimed that he met the petitioner No.2 and informed him that petitioner No.1 was his wife, yet the petitioners continued their illicit relationship. He therefore, alleged that the petitioners were living together and thereby, had committed an offence punishable under Sections 494 and 497 of IPC. (iii) This private complaint was referred for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The respondent No.1 thereafter registered Crime No.301/2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 494, 497 of IPC and after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Sections 494, 497 of IPC. The Trial Court took cognizance for an offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 34 of IPC in terms of an order dated 28.11.2018 and issued process. (iv) Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12756 WP No. 15486 of 2019 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners is absent and therefore, this Court did not have the benefit of his submission. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner No.1 had filed M.C.No.2156/2018 for dissolution of marriage and that the Court in terms of a judgment dated 23.10.2025 had passed an order of dissolution of marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the respondent. He further contends that petitioner No.1 admitted that she had a child from the petitioner No.2 and therefore, both of them had entered into a relationship in the nature of marriage and hence, an offence under Section 494 of IPC was made out. He thus contends that the order taking cognizance is just and proper and does not warrant any interference. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent. 6. A perusal of the private complaint lodged by the respondent before the Trial Court did not indicate that the petitioners were married. On the contrary, he only mentioned that the petitioners were in a live-in relationship. A perusal of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12756 WP No. 15486 of 2019 the charge-sheet also does not indicate that there was any marriage between the petitioners. For an offence under Section 494 of IPC to be attracted, it is necessary that one of the spouses should marry for the second time during the subsistence of the earlier marriage. The prosecution has failed to procure materials to justify that the petitioners were married, although the petitioner No.1 had alleged in M.C.No.2156/2018 that it was the respondent who encouraged her to have relationship with the petitioner No.2. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court committed an error in taking cognizance for an offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 34 of IPC as there was no tangible material to justify the offence under Section 494 of IPC. This apart, marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the respondent is dissolved in terms of a judgment dated 23.10.2025 passed in M.C.No.2156/2018 and therefore, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this case alive. 7. Consequently, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) This petition is allowed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12756 WP No. 15486 of 2019 (ii) The order dated 28.11.2018 passed by the JMFC, Kumta, in P.C.No.214/2016 taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 34 of IPC is quashed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46