AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties.
It is not a matter of dispute, that the marriage between the appellant (A.B. Asha) before this Court, and the respondent - H.S. Basava Rajappa, was solemnized on 11.8.1998. The marriage was consummated, whereupon it is alleged, that the respondent started having an affair with one Parvathamma. Realising that the respondent may marry the said Parvathamma, the appellant filed a suit bearing O.S. No. 37/2000 seeking a temporary injunction, for restraining the respondent from marrying the said Parvathamma.
The injunction was granted. Despite the above restraint order, the respondent allegedly married with the said Parvathamma on 16.2.2001. It is therefore, that the appellant preferred a complaint against the respondent - H.S. Basava Rajappa (as accused no.1), and the said Parvathamma (as accused no.2). In the procedure adopted by the Magistrate, rather than proceeding with the matter as a warrants case, it was determined as a summons case.
Realising the above mistake, a denovo trial was initiated at the behest of the Magistrate himself. Despite having done so, the procedure contemplated for a warrants case, was not adopted.
The respondent - accused no. 1 was convicted, for having committed an offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code.
Dissatisfied with the determination rendered by the trial Court, the matter eventually reached the High Court through Criminal Revision Petition No. 83 of 2012. During the hearing of the aforesaid criminal revision petition, the High Court taking into consideration that thirteen years'' had elapsed after the respondent had married Parvathamma, while allowing the criminal revision petition, and setting aside the order of conviction, did not order fresh proceedings, in consonance with the procedure postulated for warrants cases.
Having given our thoughtful consideration to the issue in hand, we are of the view, that the criminal proceedings cannot be set aside as lightly has been done by the High Court. A crime cannot be overlooked as easily as has been done by the High Court.
We accordingly hereby set aside the impugned order, and remand the matter to the trial Court for denovo trial, in consonance with the procedure postulated for warrants case.
The instant criminal appeal is allowed accordingly.