MOHANKUMAR Vs. DEEPA ALIAS MANJULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent State. Perused the records.

(2.) ONE Smt. Deepa @ Manjula, who is the wife of petitioner No.1 Mohankumar has lodged a private complaint in P.C. No.9/2012, later registered as C.C. No.696/2012 making allegations that petitioner No.1 has married her on 22.11.2007 as per Hindu rites and customs and after the marriage they have lived happily for some time. After eight days of marriage, it is alleged that petitioner No.1 and his family members have started ill -treating and harassing said Deepa. It is also stated that being aggrieved by the illtreatment and harassment given by petitioner No.1 and his family members, the respondent has filed a complaint in P.C. No.6/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 354, 447, 448, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.' for brevity). So far as this complaint is concerned, it is specifically averred that about a week prior to filing of private complaint by the respondent it is alleged that one Gajalingappa and one Nagappa had been to Veebhadreshwar temple in Chalkeri village and have seen the petitioner No.1 marrying accused No.4 Laxmi D/o.Anjaneppa. These two witnesses have in fact opposed the said marriage on the ground that the petitioner No.1 has already married the respondent herein, but the accused persons have abused these two witnesses and set them out from the said place. It is specifically stated that they have seen the accused No.1 tying nuptial knot (tali) and garlanding accused No.4 Laxmi. It is also stated that the other accused persons have in fact helped accused No.1 in marrying accused No.4 knowing fully well that accused No.1 has married respondent lawfully on 22.07.2007 and thereby the accused persons have committed an offence punishable under Section 494 of I.P.C. On the above allegations, a private complaint was filed. The complainant has examined herself as C.W.1 and one witness by name Mallayya, who is the priest of Shree Veerabhadreshwar Temple, Chalkeri. He has stated that he was present at the time of marriage between accused Nos.1 and 4 and thereafter he has issued a Certificate of Marriage. The relatives were also present at the time of marriage. The learned Magistrate after going through the contents of the complaint and as well as the sworn statement of respondent and one witness, has taken cognizance and issued summons against the petitioners herein and other accused persons. Aggrieved by the order of learned Magistrate, the present petition is filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C. No.696/2012.

(3.) THE learned counsel for petitioners strenuously contends before this Court that the accused No.2 Amruthamma and accused Nos.7 and 8 Talwar Venkateshappa and Thathanna Kolamanahalli have not at all done anything in this particular case and there are no specific allegations against these persons in order to attract Section 494 of I.P.C. But, as could be seen from the records there is a specific allegation that these accused persons have also assisted accused No.1 in marrying accused No.4 by way of second marriage.