SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Yeshwant @ Yeshwantraya And Ors vs Malashree on 2 April, 2024

Karnataka High Court

Yeshwant @ Yeshwantraya And Ors vs Malashree on 2 April, 2024

-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2753
CRL.P No. 200840 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200840 OF 2023 (482)

BETWEEN:

1. YESHWANT @ YASHWANTRAYA S/O SHIVARAJ PATIL,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O VILLAGE KADAGANCHI, TQ. ALAND,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585106.

2. SHIVARAJ @ YASHWANTRAYA PATIL
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O VILLAGE KADAGANCHI, TQ. ALAND,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585106.
Digitally signed by
KHAJAAMEEN L 3. SMT. BHAGARATI W/O SHIVARAJ PATIL,
MALAGHAN AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOMEMAKER,
Location: HIGH R/O VILLAGE KADAGANCHI, TQ. ALAND,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA DIST. KALABURAGI-585106.

4. SANJEEVKUMAR S/O SHIVARAJ PATIL,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O VILLAGE KADAGANCHI, TQ. ALAND,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585106.

5. SMT. KAVITA W/O SANJEEVKUMAR,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: CUK EMPLOYEE,
R/O VILLAGE KADAGANCHI, TQ. ALAND,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585106.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2753
CRL.P No. 200840 of 2023

6. SMT. POOJA W/O YASHWANTRAYA,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOMEMAKER,
R/O VILLAGE KAMANHALLI, TQ. ALAND,
DIST. KALABURAGI,
NOW R/O VILLAGE KADAGANCHI,
TQ. ALAND, DIST. KALABURAGI-585106.

7. LAXMAN M. POLICE PATIL
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O VILLAGE KAMANHALLI, TQ. ALAND,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585106.

8. MAHADEVI W/O LAXMAN POLICE PATIL,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOMEMAKER,
R/O VILLAGE KAMANHALLI, TQ. ALAND,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585106.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI NANDKISHORE BOOB, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. MALASHREE
W/O YASHWANT @ YASHWANTRAYA PATIL,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOMEMAKER,
R/O PLOT NO. 15, MAIN ROAD, LAXMI NAGAR,
NEAR ASHA JYOTI SCHOOL, SEDAM ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585106.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-D, THE ORDER
DATED 08.11.2022 IN C.C.NO.20103/2022 WHICH IS PENDING
BEFORE HON’BLE VTH ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
COURT, KALABURAGI FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS
494 AND 420 OF IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AND
PROCEEDING OF CASE AND ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
28.03.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2753
CRL.P No. 200840 of 2023

ORDER

The petitioners who are the accused Nos.1 to 5,

8 to 10 in C.C.No.20103/2022 (Private Complaint

No.418/2022) before the V Additional Civil Judge and

JMFC, at Kalaburagi, are before this Court seeking to

quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

02. The petitioners along with the accused Nos.6

and 7 were alleged to have committed the offences

punishable under Sections 420 and 494 read with Section

149 of IPC with a common object. The factual matrix is

that the complainant is legally wedded wife of accused

No.1 and the accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of the

accused No.1. The accused No.8 is the second wife of

accused No.1. The other accused are brother and sister in

laws and the relatives of accused Nos.1 and 8. It was

alleged that the complainant was married to accused No.1

on 21.06.2012 at Kalaburagi. After the marriage, they

lived as husband and wife. The accused No.1 was working

as a Typist at Central University Kalaburagi. Thereafter,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2753
CRL.P No. 200840 of 2023

there was rift between the complainant and the accused

No.1. The accused No.1 filed a petition under Section 9 of

the Hindu Marriage Act and the complainant had filed a

petition for divorce. However, at the instance of the elders

the divorce petition has been withdrawn. Thereafter, again

cordial relationship was interrupted and as such a divorce

petition was filed by her, which was pending before the

Family Court, at Kalaburagi.

03. When the things stood so, on 10.01.2021, when

two of the friends of the family of the complainant went to

Ramtirth Mandir, Aland road, Kalaburagi, they found that

the accused Nos.1 to 10 were present and the accused

No.1 had married the accused No.8. The accused Nos.2 to

7, 9 and 10 had performed the marriage. The said two

witnesses though requested the accused not to go ahead

with the marriage, they were threatened and later, nearly

after a couple of months, they informed the same to the

complainant. Then she visited the house of the accused

Nos. 1 to 3 and found that the accused Nos.1 and 8 were
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2753
CRL.P No. 200840 of 2023

living as husband and wife. Then she lodged a complaint

to the learned Magistrate alleging the offence punishable

under Sections 420 and 494 read with 149 of IPC.

04. The leaned Magistrate recorded the statement

of the complainant and the witnesses and took cognizance

and issued process to the accused for the above

mentioned offences. Being aggrieved by the same the

petitioners are before this Court.

05. On issuance of notice, the respondent has

appeared through her counsel.

06. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused

the records.

07. The learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners submits that this Court in

Crl.P.No.200071/2023 dated 05.07.2023 has allowed the

petition by accused Nos.6 and 7 and quashed the

proceedings against them. It is submitted that the view

taken by this Court is that Section 494 of IPC applies only
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2753
CRL.P No. 200840 of 2023

to the spouses, but not to the others. It is contended that

the allegation of contacting the second marriage is against

the accused No.1 and accused No.8; and therefore, the

taking of cognizance against all the petitioners is

impermissible.

08. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

respondent would submit that when there is averment in

the complaint and it is supported by the sworn statement

of the complainant as well as one witness. There is no

reason to disbelieve the same and to quash the

proceedings. It is submitted that Crl.P.No.200071/2023

was only pertaining to accused Nos.6 and 7 and in the

present proceedings, the accused Nos.1 and 8 have also

sought for quashing the proceedings. The specific

allegation being against the accused Nos.1 and 8, the

present petition is bereft of any merits.

09. It is relevant to note that while deciding the

Crl.P.No.200071/2023, the case of the accused Nos.6 and

7 alone was considered by this Court and then it opined

that the Section 494 of IPC applies only to the accused
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2753
CRL.P No. 200840 of 2023

Nos.1 and 8 who are contracting parties of the marriage

and allowed the petition. Whereas in the present

proceedings such contracting parties i.e., accused Nos.1

and 8 are also arrayed as petitioners, therefore, the

reasoning given by the Court in Crl.P.No.200071/2023

does not come to the benefit of the petitioners.

10. The sworn statement of PWs.1 and 2 discloses

that she was informed by the PW.2 and one Kashinath that

they had seen performance of the marriage of the accused

Nos.1 and 8 on 10.01.2021 at Ramtirth Mandir,

Kalaburagi. Thereafter, the PW.1 and her father, along

with Baburao went to the house of the accused No.1

where accused Nos.2, 4, 5 and 8 were present. On

enquiring, they refused and asked to the complainant to

get her remedy in the Court. She states that the petition

for divorce is still pending as on 27.09.2022. The PW.2

states that he had seen the marriage of the accused Nos.1

and 8 and all the accused were present in the said

marriage. He also states that he had accompanied

complainant and her father to the house of the accused.
-8-

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2753
CRL.P No. 200840 of 2023

11. In the complaint there is clear averment that all

the accused were present at Ramtirth Mandir and they

have witnessed the marriage. The complaint narrates

when the Baburao and Kashinath had questioned the

complainant, they were threatened by the accused.

12. The next question would be whether these

accused had a common object of cheating and committing

offence of bigamy. What is to be noted is that though

Section 149 is invoked by the Trial Court, in effect, it

appears that it was abetment of the offence. It is not

known whether all accused had common object as

required under Section 149 of IPC to commit the offence

under Section 494 of IPC. But however, the offence under

Section 420 of IPC could not have been invoked since

there is no such inducement to the complainant.

Therefore, applying the provisions of Section 420 of IPC by

the Trial Court is not sustainable in law. The sworn

statement and complaint do not constitute an offence of

cheating as defined Section 415 of Cr.P.C., punishable

under Section 420 of IPC.

-9-

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2753
CRL.P No. 200840 of 2023

13. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of

Govindan Nambiyar vs Rohini1, had an occasion to deal

with a similar matter. In Para No.7, Justice Padmanabhan

(as the then was) has observed as below :

“7. It is true that marriage in some cases is a

solemnisation and in some others it is a

contract. Consent of the parties is required

whether it is solemnisation or contract Vitiating

circumstances could be pleaded and proved for

a marriage just like anything else. Abetment

need not involve any of the vitiating

circumstances on the basis of which a marriage

could be avoided. Abetment is defined in S. 107

of the Penal Code, 1860. It involves instigating

a person to do a thing, engaging in conspiracy

or intentionally aiding by any act or illegal

omission, the doing of a thing. Instigation may

involve wilful misrepresentation or wilful

concealment of material facts which the abetor

is bound to disclose. They may be vitiating

circumstances. But aiding involves only doing of

1
1985 SCC OnLine Kerala 243

– 10 –

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2753
CRL.P No. 200840 of 2023

anything to facilitate the commission. Those

who are contracting marriages coming within

the mischief of S. 494 themselves knowingly

commit either the offence under S. 494 or under

109 read with S. 494 What the abetor does is

only substantially assisting the principal culprit

towards commission of the offence. Abetment

involves active complicity on the part of the

abettor. In order to amount to abetment there

must be mens rea or community of intention.

Without knowledge or intention there can be no

abetment and the knowledge and intention must

relate to the crime and it is shared by the

abettor and the principal offender. It is not a

case in which the principal offender is misled to

do a thing not knowing that it is an offence.

Where a person who is present at the scene of

occurrence either encourages the commission of

the offence or where he is under a legal

obligation to prevent commission of the offence

and does not do so he is said to abet. Abetment

could include abetment by instigation, abetment

by conspiracy or abetment by aiding.”

– 11 –

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2753
CRL.P No. 200840 of 2023

14. Thus, it was opined that it is the abetment of an

offence, which can be taken note of. In the case on hand,

the sworn statement of the complainant and the witness

do not disclose that the accused Nos.2 to 7 and 8 to 10

had abetted the offence. It was simply stated that they

were present at the time of marriage.

15. The Apex Court in the case of Kanwal Ram

and others vs. Himachal Pradesh Administration 2

held that an offences under Sections 494 and 109 of IPC is

permissible when it is shown that the relatives of the

offenders had also instigated or abetted bigamy.

16. Further, in a recent decision in the

case Shrawan Singh v. State of Rajasthan 3, after

considering the views of many High Courts and also of the

Apex court in the case of Joseph Shine Vs Union of

India4 has observed as below:-

2

AIR 1966 SC 614
3
2023 SCC OnLine Raj 1247
4
(2019) 3 SCC 39

– 12 –

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2753
CRL.P No. 200840 of 2023

“34. In the instant case, the offence of bigamy
is a non-cognizable offence. While the duty of
a third person under Section 43 Cr. P.C. in
witnessing the commission of a cognizable
offence itself is not obligatory on such person,
it would be unjust and improper to say that
any person aware of the factum of subsistence
of previous marriage of a bigamist, ought to
make such disclosure. And therefore, the same
would not and cannot fall within the realm of
abetment.

35. This Court is of the firm opinion that in the
changing times, the dimensions of culpability
with respect to matrimonial offences ought to
be revisited, otherwise, it shall create more
impediments and weakness in the institution of
marriage, rather than strengthen it.

36. The goal of the law with the introduction of
such a penal provision was to strengthen the
institution of marriage while carving out the
definition of criminal activity pertaining to the
same which is a matrimonial wrong, against
the bigamist alone.

– 13 –

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2753
CRL.P No. 200840 of 2023

37. At the cost of repetition, this Court thus
finds that the ambit of bigamy is narrow and
limited to the erring spouses alone. It cannot
be expanded or said to have a wider
connotation by way of abetment.

38. The fact that bigamy is a compoundable,
bailable and non cognizable offence, itself
reveals the peculiar nature of an offence,
which is punishable with imprisonment upto
seven years and with the imposition of a fine.

39. This Court is of the opinion that in the
present case also the expansion of the offence
of bigamy on the face of it would not only lead
to unruly and unfair circumstances, but would
also create distraught conditions in families of
erring persons. And therefore, no other
person, except the erring spouse, may be
saddled with criminal culpability.

39.1. In the case of Joseph Shine, (supra), the
Hon’ble Apex Court held that the difference
between the offences of adultery and bigamy,
is that while adultery is an offence involving a
third party, the offence of bigamy is an offence

– 14 –

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2753
CRL.P No. 200840 of 2023

only between the spouses, and therefore
within the realm of marriage. It thus makes
clear that the offence of bigamy can be
sustained only to the extent of the bigamist
spouse, and not against any other third party.

40. While this Court is of the clear opinion that
a bigamist, be it a man or woman, ought to be
proceeded in strict accordance with the
provision of law contained in Section 494IPC, it
is unable to accept the proposition that a
person may abet the offence to commit the
offence of bigamy.”

17. In that view of the matter, the ground that all

these petitioners can be prosecuted for the offence under

Section 494 of IPC, cannot be sustained. As noted above,

the offence alleged of Section 494 of IPC against accused

Nos.1 and 8 in no way can be quashed, when it is

demonstrated by statements of PW.1 and 2. Though there

are divergent opinions regarding the applicability of

section 109 of IPC to offence u/s 494 of IPC, the case on

hand shows that no specific roles of the accused No. 2 to

– 15 –

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2753
CRL.P No. 200840 of 2023

5, 9 and 10 are stated in the complaint. Mere presence

cannot make them to suffer trial for offence u/s 109 or

149 of IPC.

18. However, the prosecuting the accused Nos.2 to

5 and 9 and 10 cannot be sustained. Hence, the petition is

to be allowed in part. Accordingly, the following;

ORDER

The petition is partly allowed.

The proceeding in C.C.No.20103/2022 (Private

Complaint No.418/2022) before the V Additional Civil

Judge and JMFC, at Kalaburagi, as against the accused

Nos.2 to 5, 9 and 10, is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KJJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41
CT:PK

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2024 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation