IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF MARCH, 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. JAGANNATHAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10020/2011 BETWEEN 1. Umesh Dakappa Chavan Age: 35 years, 0cc: Service R/o. Hubli 2. Dakappa Gopanna Chavan Age: 65 years, 0cc: Agriculture 3. Smt. Valibai W/o. Dakappa Chavan Age: 60 years, 0cc: Household work 4. Shrikrishna Dakappa Chavan Age: 40 years, 0cc: Agriculture 5. Babu Manappa Rathod Age: 45 years, 0cc: Agriculture All are R/o. Golbal Tanda Dist & Tq: Bagalkot PETITIONERS (By Sri. N. L. Batakurki, Adv.) AND: 1. Smt. (}irija, W/o. Umesh Chavan Age: 28 years, 0cc: Household work R/o. Golbal Tanda, Tq: Hungund RESPONDENT (By Sri. V. R. Datar, Adv.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C SEEKING TO QUASI! THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE / ISSUE OF PROCESS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISAHBLE U/S 494 & 114 OF IPC BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC, HUNGUND IN PRIVATE COMPLAINT NO.34/2009 (C.C.NO.232/2010) DATED 2 1.05.2010 AGAINST THE PETITIONER AT VIDE ANNEXURE-D. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Heard the petitioners’ Counsel. None appears for the respondent. 2. In this petition the prayer is to quash the proceedings pending on the file of the learned Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC. Hungund in P.C.No.34/2009 (C.C.No.232/2010) in respect of cognizance taken for the offences punishable under Sections 494 and 114 of IPC. 3. Submission of the petitioners’ Counsel is that, in the private complaint filed by the l respondent. who is said to be the first wife of the l petitioner, the allegations are mainly against the 1st petitioner who is said to have married for the second time to the 7t1i respondent in the private complaint. Therefore, submission made is that, except the 1st petitioner, the other petitioners have no role to play, except the allegation of having taken part in the second marriage. 4. Taking note of the aforesaid submissions made and on perusal of the complaint itself, in my view, the offences under Section 494 of IPC is mainly directed against the 1’ petitioner and therefore, as regards the other petitioners are concerned, the proceedings can be quashed in the interest of justice. 5. For the above reasons, this petition is allowed insofar as the proceedings against petitioners No.2 to 5 4 are concerned and the said proceedings in the trial Court against them shall stand quashed. However, the trial Court is at liberty to proceed with the case against the 1st petitioner. ScI/.. gab t1DQ