GEETA Vs. CHANNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and as well as the respondents. The respondent No. 1 Channappa lodged a private complaint in PC 252/2013 against this petitioner and respondent No. 2 alleging the offences under Sections 494 and 497 of I.P.C. The learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that even the averments in the complaint at this stage is translated into evidence, there is absolutely no allegations that the petitioner and as well as the 2nd respondent have married each other, thereby violating the Marriage tie between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. Therefore, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 494 and 497 of I.P.C. is not maintainable against the petitioner.

(2.) I have carefully perused the complaint averments. It is alleged by the complainant -Channappa that the accused No. 1 Smt. Geeta is the legally wedded wife and it is specifically stated that she had some illicit intimacy with the 2nd respondent and they have been living as if husband and wife in a common residence. They have also taken up photographs together. At page 3 it is categorically stated that accused Nos. 1 and 2 have got illicit relationship with each other knowing fully well that the marriage between the complainant and the 1st accused is still in existence and no divorce had been taken place. Only on these reasons, the complainant has requested the Court to take cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 494 and 497 of I.P.C.

(3.) COMING to the second point, so far as the offence under Section 497 of I.P.C. is concerned, it is worth to note a decision of the Apex Court reported between V. Revathi Vs. Union of India and others ( : AIR 1988 SC 835) wherein the Apex Court observed that: