1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8952 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

1. SRI SHANMUGAM
S/O MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

2. SMT.MUNIYAMMA
W/O MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 ARE
R/AT NO.15, 1ST MAIN ROAD
NARAYANAPPA GARDEN
TAVAREKERE, BENGALURU – 562 130

3. SRI MUNISWAMY @ TINKER MUNISWAMY
S/O MUNILAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/AT NARAYANAPPA GARDEN
TAVAREKERE
BENGALURU – 562 130 …PETITIONERS

(BY SRI H.RAMACHANDRA, ADV.)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION
BENGALURU

2. SMT.TEJASWINI
W/O SHANMUGAM
2

AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT NO.15, 4TH CROSS
NAGASHETTY HALLI
BENGALURU – 560 094 …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI S.RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI H.V.MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE
CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN
MICO LAYOUT IN CRIME NO.1070/2015 REGISTERED IN
C.C.NO.21166/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 6TH
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 494, 498(A), 114 R/W 34 OF IPC
AND ETC.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners,

Counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned High Court

Government Pleader for the State/respondent No.1.

Perused the records.

2. The petitioners have sought for quashing of the

entire proceedings in C.C.No.21166/2016 pending on

the file of VI Additional C.M.M., Bangalore City, for the

offences under Sections 494 and 498A read with

Section 114 and 34 of IPC.

3

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners

contended that even on translation of the entire charge

sheet papers into evidence, there are no allegations so

far as petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are concerned to attract

the provisions of Sections 498A and 494 of IPC, though

some allegations are there so far as petitioner No.1 is

concerned. Therefore, the proceedings have to be

quashed so far as petitioners-2 and 3 are concerned.

4. A careful perusal of the complaint filed by the

second respondent before the Police for the above said

offences shows that, the marriage between the first

petitioner and second respondent taken place on

21.11.2004 in Bangalore and thereafter they started

residing together for some time. At that time, it is

specifically alleged that all the accused persons have

started ill-treating and harassing respondent No.2. In

this context, there are complaints lodged by the second

respondent before Basavanagudi Women Police Station

and there was some compromise between the parties

and thereafter they joined together, however, even

inspite of that, accused persons did not stop ill-treating
4

and harassing respondent No.2. Though petitioner No.1

(accused No.1) and respondent No.2 were residing

together in a separate house, it is alleged that accused

Nos.2 and 3 have joined hands with accused No.1 and

conducted second marriage of the accused No.1 and

they themselves have performed the marriage by

supporting petitioner No.1. Therefore, making such

allegations, an FIR was lodged and Police have

registered a case in Crime No.1070/2015 and after

thorough investigation, submitted a charge sheet before

the Court. During the course of investigation, the Police

have recorded the statements of as many as nine

witnesses and also collected various documents and

Police came to the conclusion that, there was ill-

treatment and harassment by all the accused persons

and there was a second marriage of accused No.1 with

the help of accused Nos.2 and 3.

5. Though the learned Counsel submitted that,

there are absolutely no material to connect the accused

persons, but the entire charge sheet is not made

available to the court except producing the facing sheet
5

of the charge sheet. The statement of witnesses and

the documents collected by the Police in this regard are

not available to the court. Therefore, in my opinion,

without any materials on record, this Court cannot

conclusively draw any inference that, no offences are

attracted so far petitioners are concerned. Therefore,

same has to be thrashed out either at the time of

framing of charges or at the time of evidence before the

Trial Court.

6. The legal question that has been raised by the

learned Counsel before this Court is that in view of the

bar under Section 198 of Cr.P.C., the Police have no

jurisdiction to register a case for the offence under

Section 494 and investigate and submit a report under

Section 173 of Cr.P.C.

7. This point has been set at rest by the Apex

Court in a decision reported in (2012) 6 SCC 353

between Ushaben -vs- Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada

and Others wherein the Apex Court has observed that

the cognizance of complaint for commission of offence

under Sections 494 and 498A, the Court can take
6

cognizance of offence under Section 494 of IPC, only on

a complaint filed by “aggrieved person” as defined

under Section 198(1)(c) of Cr.P.C., while it can take

cognizance of offence under Section 498A even on a

Police report. Therefore, when the Police have invoked

Section 498A along with Section 494 and investigated

the matter and filed the report under Section 173 of

Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is well within his jurisdiction in

taking cognizance for both the offences.

8. Under the above said circumstances, no other

grounds are available to the petitioners herein.

Therefore, the petition is devoid of merits and the same

is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KNM/-