Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Bench: JUSTICE L.N. Mittal
Jaswinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. State Of Punjab & Anr. On 7 January 2013
Law Point:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Section 12 r/w Sections 18, 19(1), 20, 22, 23 — Quashing of Complaint — Protection order — Complaint filed against husband and petitioners ,who are parents and sisters of husband — Case of wife that husband at the behest of and in connivance with petitioners had been committing domestic violence against her — She admitted that she was not residing with petitioners since year 2004 — Complaint dated 26.8.2010 would not lie against petitioners — Arraying of petitioners as co-respondents along with husband of complainant in complaint is sheer abuse of process of law — Complaint quashed qua petitioners.
JUDGEMENT
1. Petitioners who are respondents/accused Nos. 2 to 4 in complaint Annexure P1 lodged by respondent No. 2 complainant under Section 12 read with Sections 18, 19(1), 20,22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, “the Act”) have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) for quashing of the said complaint Annexure P1 along with summoning order dated 26.8.2010 Annexure P2 qua petitioners.
2. Marriage of respondent No. 2 complainant was solemnized with Devinder Pal Singh (accused No. 1) on 28.1.2001. Petitioners herein are parents and sister of said Devinder Pal Singh. Petitioner No. 1 has since died and, therefore, the instant revision petition qua her has been rendered infructuous.
3. Case of respondent No. 1 inter alia is that accused No. 1 husband at the behest of and in connivance with the petitioners had been committing different acts of domestic violence against the complainant. It is also the averment of the complainant that all the four accused had been committing physical cruelty to the complainant.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
5. Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that there is no specific averment against the petitioners. It was submitted that even the complainant in her reply has stated in paragraph 6 of preliminary submissions that in December, 2004, she along with her husband were made to shift to a different house on the pretext of renovation of the house where they were residing with the petitioners. It was contended that since after the year 2004, the complainant as per her own version did not reside with the petitioners in the premises bearing House No. 19A, Nihal Bagh Baradari, Patiala where the petitioners are residing and, therefore, complaint dated 26.8.2010 under the Act does not lie against the petitioners.
6. On the other hand, Counsel for respondent No. 2/complainant vehemently and repeatedly contended that at the time of motion hearing, Counsel for the petitioners relied on judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ajay Kant and Others v. Smt. Alka Sharma, 2007 (4) RCR (Cr.) 930, to contend that complaint under the Act does not lie against females but Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sou. Sandhya Manoj Wankhede v. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhede and Others, II (2011) DMC 811 (SC)=III (2011) CCR 377 (SC)=AIR 2011 SC 567, has laid down that complaint under the Act lies against females also. It was also contended that there are specific averments against the petitioners also in the complaint. It was also argued that even after the complainant and her husband shifted to the other premises i.e. House No. 58B, New Officers Colony, Patiala in the year 2004, the complainant had been visiting the petitioners in house No. 19A, Nihal Bagh, Baradari, Patiala.
7. Counsel for the petitioners, in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sou. Sandhya Manoj Wankhede (supra), did not press the plea that complaint under the Act does not lie against the females.
8. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The complainant has herself admitted that she has not been residing with the petitioners since the year 2004 in the house in Baradari and, therefore, the impugned complaint Annexure P1 which is dated 26.8.2010 would not lie against the petitioners. Arraying of the petitioners as co-respondents along with husband of the complainant in the complaint is sheer abuse of process of law which has to be prevented by this Court by exercising inherent power under Section 482, Cr.P.C.
9. Counsel for the complainant also contended that the complainant, while she was pregnant, was also subjected to sex determination test in the year 2001. However, qua the alleged incident of 2001 also, complaint filed in the year 2010 cannot be taken cognizance of against the petitioners.
10. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners in impugned complaint Annexure P1. Prosecution of the petitioners in the said complaint is nothing but abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. Impugned complaint Annexure P1 and summoning order Annexure P2 are quashed qua petitioners only. Nothing observed in this order shall have any bearing on the proceedings qua complainant’s husband Devinder Pal Singh.
11. As prayed for by Counsel for the complainant, the trial Magistrate is directed to now proceed with the impugned complaint against the complainant’s husband as expeditiously as possible.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
Leave A Comment