- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7872 CRL.P No. 2348 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2348 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. M.K. SIDDALINGE GOWDA S/O LATE KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 2. SANJU @ SANJAY S/O M K SIDDALINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 3. SANTHOSH S/O M K SIDDALINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 4. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O M K SIDDALINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.1376, 5TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN KRISHNAMURTHYPURAM NEAR BALLAL CIRCLE MYSORE - 570 004 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KARUMBAIAH T.A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ALDUR POLICE CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT REP. BY S.P.P HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001 Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7872 CRL.P No. 2348 of 2021 2. D M DIVYA D/O MANUNATHA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/A CHIKKAHALLA VILLAGE ALDUR HOBLI, CHICKMAGALUR TQ AND DISTRICT - 577 111 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.312/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHICKMAGALURU REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE IN CR.NO.26/2021 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 417, 420, 506, 494, 498A R/W 34 OF IPC. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 4 in CC.No.312/2019 pending on the file of learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikmagalur in Crime No.26/2012 of Aldur Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 506, 494, 498(A) and read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, respondent No.2 filed the private complaint in PCR.No.15/2012 before the Trial - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7872 CRL.P No. 2348 of 2021 Court against accused Nos.1 to 4 alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The complaint was referred for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, and the FIR was registered in Crime No.26/2012 of Aldur Police Station. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 420, 506, 494, 498(A) read with Section 34 of IPC, now the matter is pending in CC.No.312/2019. In the meantime the petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 4 are before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 3. It is noticed that the petitioners had approached this Court earlier by filing Crl.P.No.3657/2012 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them during crime stage. The said petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 09.10.2018. After filing the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences and registered the criminal case, against the petitioners who are before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7872 CRL.P No. 2348 of 2021 4. Heard Sri. Karumbaiah. T.A, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Soumya R, learned HCGP for respondent No.1. Perused the materials on record. 5. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" My answer to the above point is 'Partly-in-the - Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 6. Respondent No.2 - the complainant filed the private complaint alleging that accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 to 4 have taken her to a temple on 29.05.2009 and on the same day the marriage with accused No.1 was performed by exchange of garlands. After marriage with accused No.1 she had gone to the house of accused No.1 and started residing there along with accused Nos.2 and 4 being father and mother and accused No.3 being the brother of accused No.1. During - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7872 CRL.P No. 2348 of 2021 this period she was treated with cruelty, her fidelity was questioned by accused No.1. 7. It is also her contention that she was cheated by accused Nos.1 to 4. Therefore, she filed suit in MC.No.129/2011 seeking declaration that the marriage dated 29.05.2009 is null and void. The said petition was renumbered as MC.No.51/2013 on the file of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikmagaluru. Accused No.1 had not contested the matter and the suit came to be decreed vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.2013 declaring that the marriage of the complainant with accused No.1 held on 29.05.2009 is null and void. Even though, the said judgment was challenged by accused No.1 by preferring miscellaneous first appeal, the same came to be dismissed. Thus the decree declaring that the marriage between accused No.1 and the complainant is null and void has reached finality. 8. During the pendency of MC.No.129/2011 the complaint filed the private complaint in PC.No.15/2012 against accused Nos.1 to 4 alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 506 read with Section 34 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7872 CRL.P No. 2348 of 2021 of IPC. After investigation charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 506, 494, 498(A) read with Section 34 of IPC. 9. It is noticed that the complainant - respondent No.2 was aged 27 years during 2012 when the private complaint was came to be filed. It is pertinent to note that, before filing the private complaint in the year 2012, MC.No.129/2011 came to be filed before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikmagaluru seeking declaration that the marriage with accused No.1 is null and void. It is specifically contended that accused Nos.1 to 4 came to respondent No.2 and offered to marry accused No.1 and took her to temple at Mudigere on the same day. She also states that, after marriage she had been to the house of accused No.1. However, she contends that there was no traditional ceremonies that had taken place to constitute the valid marriage and therefore, the said marriage is null and void. 10. It is also contended that accused No.1 had already married with one Smt. Veena Priyadarshini, and during the subsistence of such marriage, accused No.1 married the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7872 CRL.P No. 2348 of 2021 complainant. This Court while dismissing the Crl.P.No.3657/2012 observed that there was an interim order operating against accused No.1 not to contract second marriage during the subsistence of his marriage with Smt.Veena and violating the said interim order that was passed in OS.No.32/2006 accused No.1 had contracted the marriage with the complainant. These facts are not in serious dispute. Even though, the marriage is declared to be null and void, the fact remains that accused No.1 was already married to another lady and there was an interim order not to contract second marriage. Under such circumstance, the act of accused No.1 prima facie attracts Section 494 of IPC which relates to marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife. With these undisputed facts of the case, offences under Section 494 of IPC is made out against accused No.1 and therefore, he is not entitled for quashing the criminal proceedings of the said offence. 11. The allegations against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC cannot be invoked for the simple reason that the marriage between the complainant - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7872 CRL.P No. 2348 of 2021 and accused No.1 was already declared as null and void by a decree passed by the Trial Court on 31.10.2013 on the basis of the petition filed before the Family Court during 2011 which was much earlier to filing of the complaint before the Trial Court. 12. Regarding the offences under Sections 417 and 420 of IPC, as I have already stated that the complainant was not a minor nor she was disabled to take an independent decision. Her specific contention is that, she accompanied accused Nos.1 to 4 to a temple, and exchanged the garlands on the same day went and started residing with accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 to 4. The complaint came to be filed only during 2012, after filing the petition seeking declaration that her marriage with accused No.1 is null and void. Under such circumstance, it cannot be said that there was commission of the offence of cheating to invoke Sections 417 or 420 of IPC. 13. Regarding the offence under Section 506 of IPC, there is bald allegation regarding giving life threat to her by the accused. On the basis of such bald allegations, the criminal proceedings cannot be initiated or proceed with. Therefore, I - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7872 CRL.P No. 2348 of 2021 am of the opinion that, the offence under Sections 417, 420, 506, 494, 498(A) read with Section 34 of IPC against accused Nos.2 to 4 is liable to be quashed. The offence under Section 417, 420, 506, 498(A) read with Section 34 of IPC against accused No.1 is liable to be quashed. However, petitioner No.1 - accused No.1 is liable to face the trial for the offence under Section 494 of IPC, as there are prima facie materials to constitute the offence against him. Accordingly, I answer the above point 'partly-in-the-affirmative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed-in-part. ii) The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner - accused No.1 under Sections 417, 420, 506, 498(A) read with Section 34 of IPC, in CC.No.312/2019 (Crime No.26/2012 of Aldur Police Station) pending on the file of learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikmagalur is hereby quashed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7872 CRL.P No. 2348 of 2021 iii) The Petition filed by accused No.1 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings for the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC is rejected. iv) The criminal proceedings initiated against petitioner Nos.2 to 4 - accused Nos.2 to 4 for the offence under Sections 417, 420, 506, 494, 498(A) read with Section 34 of IPC in CC.No.312/2019 (Crime No.26/2012 of Aldur Police Station) pending on the file of learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikmagalur is hereby quashed. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE PNV CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5