Banumathy vs G Prakash

A.S. Pachhapure

The petitioner has challenged the order of discharge passed by the Additional C.J.M. Myeore

The facts reveal that the petitioner is said to be wife of the respondent. Their marriage took place on 25.12.1985 at Bangalore They lived together and through the wedlook, they have a child also, It is her grievance that the respondent started blackmailing her to extract money and got issued, a false notice. She alleges that the respondent is said to have undergone second marriage during the lifetime of the petitioner. The second marriage is said to'' be have taken place at Hullehalli Shivamma Kalyana Mantap Nanjanagudu and after the second marriage a child was also born on 26.05.1993 at Ramakrishna Nursing Home. So, as the respondent married a woman in the subsistence of the first marriage and in the notice issued he made a grievance that the petitioner is cheating him and she filed a complaint before the Magistrate for initiating action for the offence punishable u/s 494 and 504 of I.P.C. cognizance was taken and in pursuance the same, Charge memo was issued to respondent, the respondent appeared before the Magistrate, evidence was recorded, wherein, the complainant was examined as PW-1 and despite pant of time 60 lead further evidence, the petitioner din not examine any other witnesses.

In those circumstances, the learned Magistrate heard the counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the materials on record, has discharged the respondent Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed.

I heard the learned counsel for the both the parties,

In support of her case the petitioner examined herself as PW-1 and got ''marked the documents Exs.P-1 to 10. After the evidence of PW-1 was recorded the matter was adjourned to 29.01.1998, 16.02.1998, 29.12.1998, and 22.04.1999 but the petitioner did not examine any other witness. Sufficient opportunity was granted by the Trial Court to the petitioner to examine a witness to support her claim for framing charge. The perusal of the evidence of PW-1 reveals that she is not an eye witness to the alleged second marriage. Though in the complaint she stated that she has named two witnesses namely Smt. Kanchanamma and Ananth Padmanabha, they were not tendered for examination to place material on record about the second marriage. So, when the PW-1 is not an eyewitness to the marriage the mere fact, that the respondent has been shown as the father of a child born to another woman itself is sufficient to hold that there is at second marriage. Having availed an opportunity to examine the witnesses she has not examined any witness. In such circumstance it has to be held that there is no material on record for the charge punishable u/s 494 of IPC.

So far as, the offence punishable u/s 500 of IPC is concerned, he made a grievance against the respondent that he was blackmailing the petitioner to extract money and she had issued a notice to the respondent. The notice was replied alleging that the petitioner is cheating the respondent In my considered view, that correspondence between the petitioner and the respondent does not amount to an offence punishable u/s 500 of IPC, So there is no material for both the offences punishable u/s 494 and 500 of IPC. It is because of this reason that the learned Magistrate discharged the respondent for the aforesaid offences and I do not find any merit in this revision petition. Hence, it is accordingly dismissed.