1. Petition to quash criminal proceedings for bigamy and cheating under Sections 494 and 417 IPC. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.G. Uma, J
Priyanka – Appellant
Versus
Anand – Respondent
CRL.P. NO.100918/2019
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A P Murari
For the Respondents: Raghavenda A. Purohit, Vinayak S. Kulkarni
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A P Murari
For the Respondents: Raghavenda A. Purohit, Vinayak S. Kulkarni
Criminal proceedings for bigamy and cheating should not be quashed under Section 482 CrPC if prima facie evidence exists; contradictions regarding the authenticity of documents must be decided during a full-fledged trial rather than at the stage of cognizance.
Headnote:(A) Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Cognizance of Offence - Prima facie case - When the trial court has taken cognizance based on sworn statements and supporting documents including photographs and IDs, the High Court will not quash proceedings if sufficient materials exist to proceed, as the veracity of documents must be tested during trial. (Para 15, 16)
(B) Bigamy and Cheating - Section 494 and 417 IPC - Subsistence of marriage - Allegations of marrying another person during the subsistence of a first marriage, supported by evidence, constitute sufficient grounds for trial regardless of whether the second spouse is arrayed as an accused. (Para 13, 16)
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused is liable to be quashed?
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- family law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argues no offence, documents forged, and co-accused not arrayed. Respondent contends prima facie materials support cognizance. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. Sufficient prima facie materials exist; whether documents are concocted is a trial issue. Marital status is not a quashing ground. (Para 10 , 13 , 16 , 17 )
4. Prima facie evidence of a second marriage during a subsisting marriage warrants trial; quashing is not justified at this stage. (Para 13 , 16 )
5. Petition dismissed; trial court to proceed with the complaint under Sections 494 and 417 IPC. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 )
6. Can criminal proceedings for bigamy be quashed based on a challenge to the authenticity of documentary evidence?
No, the authenticity of documents is a matter for trial; prima facie material supporting the complaint is sufficient to proceed. (Para 13 , 16 )
7. Is it necessary for the subsequent spouse to be arrayed as an accused in a complaint under Section 494 IPC?
The judgment does not decide this as a binding principle; it notes the petitioner's contention but does not base its decision on it. (Para 6 , 8 )
8. Does the settled personal life of the accused provide a ground to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC?
No, the accused's marital status and settled life are not grounds to quash criminal proceedings when prima facie material exists. (Para 17 )
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER IN C.C.NO.640/2019 (P.C.NO.76/2018) AT ANNEXURE-M DATED 11.01.2019 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, HUBBALLI, TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCES U/S 494 & 417 OF IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONER, AS WELL AS THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT AT ANNEXURE-K, DATED 28.10.2017.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING ON THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner/accused is before this Court seeking to quash the impugned order dated 11.01.2019, passed by the learned Prl. Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Hubballi, in C.C.No.640/2019, taking cognizance of the offence for the offences punishable under Section 494 and 417 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'), in the private complaint No.76/2018.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 herein as complainant filed the private complaint in P.C.No.76/2018 against the petitioner herein as accused and contended that during 2009, he came in contact with the accused and subsequently married on 17.04.2013. Accused continued her education in Diploma and the complainant has provided financial assistance by spending huge amount. Thereafter she secured job in KPCL, RTPS, Raichur. After joining to the service, the conduct of the accused has been changed and she started switching off her mobile and avoiding the complainant. The complainant stated that recently he came to know that the accused married another person by name Ravindra S/o. Basappa Pannapur, R/o.Karatagi, Gangavathi. Therefore, it is stated that the accused, during the subsistence of her marriage with the complainant, committed criminal breach of trust and married another person. Accused induced the complainant to invest huge amount on her education and treatment and cheated him by marrying for the second time. Thereby she committed the offence punishable under Sections 406, 494 & 420 of IPC.
3. The sworn statement of the complainant was recorded before the trial Court. Exs.C-1 to C-14 were marked by the complainant. The trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that there are sufficient materials to proceed against the accused and took cognizance of offence under Sections 494 and 417 of IPC and registered C.C.No.640/2019. Accused was summoned to appear before the trial Court. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings pending before the trial Court.
4. Heard Sri A.P. Murari, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Raghavenda A. Purohit, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Vinayak S. Kulkarni, learned A.G.A. for respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the complainant. False allegations are made without any supporting document and without any basis. Even though several documents i.e., marriage invitation card, ration card and election ID card were came to be marked before the trial Court, they are all engineered documents. He further submitted that photographs at Ex.C-2 to C-7 do not pertain to the marriage of the present petitioner with the complainant, but it was of some other occasion. Therefore, same cannot be the basis to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that the husband of the petitioner is not arrayed as an accused while filing the private complaint. Under such circumstances, Section 494 of IPC could not be attracted.
7. Learned counsel drawn my attention to the photographs, election ID card of the petitioner to substantiate his contention that the petitioner had married one Ravindra on 15.04.2016 and that it is a registered marriage and therefore, no offence could be made out against the petitioner. Therefore, he prays for quashing the criminal proceedings by setting aside the impugned order taking cognizance of the offence, passed by the trial Court.
8. Per contra, learned c
