HANAMAPPA LAXMAPPA Vs. LAXMAVVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dt. 16-8-1977 passed by the Principal Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gokak, in CC.889 of 1977, taking cognizance of the offences under Secs.494, and 494 read, with 109 of the IPC, and directing issue of process against the petitioners. Though this is filed as Criminal Petition under Sec.482 Of the CrlPC, it is being disposed of in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court, in view of the fact that when the petition was filed, the question whether a revision would lie Or not as against such orders was still to be settled, and by now it is settled that a revision would lie as such an order is not an interlocutory order within the ambit of Sec.397(2) of the CrlPC. Respondent-1 Laxmavva filed a complaint against the petitioners and respondents-2 and 3, alleging that respondents-2 and 3 were married with the connivance of the petitioners though she was the wife of Gireppa and her marriage was subsisting. On 16-8-77 the learned Magistrate recorded the statement of respondent-1 and one witness by name Mahalingappa, and directed issue of process.

(2.) Sri B.V.Deshpande, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, urged that respondent-l had filed a complaint earlier and the same had ended in an order of discharge according to the provisions of the CrlPC, 1898 (to be hereinafter referred to as the old Code) and that fact ought to have been taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate. He nextly urged that the evidence of the petitioner and her witness Mahalingappa did not disclose a valid second marriage between respondent-2 and respondent-3 and, therefore, the Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance Of the offences and issued process.

(3.) The order-sheet dj 11-8-77 discloses that the learned Magistrate has borne in mind that earlier complaint filed by respondent-l had ended in discharge under Sec.259 of the old Code. He has opined that as it was an Older of discharge, it did not come in the way of respondent-l filing a fresh complaint. The view expressed by the learned Magistrate cannot be found fault with. Therefore, the first contention of Sri Deshpande fails.