Karnataka High Court
Gajanand S/O Ramchandra Revankar vs State Of Karnataka on 22 July, 2020
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V. Srishananda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRL.P. NO.101287/2017
BETWEEN
1. GAJANAND S/O. RAMCHANDRA REVANKAR
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED,
R/O: #3658, 13TH F MAIN,
HAL II STAGE,
DODDAPANAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560008.
2. RAJESHWARI W/O GAJANAND REVANKAR
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: #3658, 13TH F MAIN,
HAL II STAGE,
DODDAPANAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560008.
3. PAVAN S/O GAJANAND REVANKAR
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB,
R/O: #3658, 13TH F MAIN,
HAL II STAGE,
DODDAPANAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560008.
4. SURESH S/O VISHWANATH SHEJWADKAR
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESSMAN,
R/O: #303, 304, E BLOCK,
AKSHAY PARK, GOKUL ROAD,
HUBBALLI-580030.
5. SINDHU W/O SURESH SHEJWADKAR
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O: #303, 304, E BLOCK,
2
AKSHAY PARK, GOKUL ROAD,
HUBBALLI-580030.
6. PRAKASH S/O VENKATESH DAIVAJNA
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: PRINCIPAL,
R/O: #71/7B SHRI.GANESH NILAYA,
BOLWER BYPASS,
PUTTUR-574201.
7. SHAKUNTALA W/O PRAKASH DIAVAJNA
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O: #71/7B
SHRI.GANESH NILAYA,
BOLWER BYPASS,
PUTTUR-574201.
8. MANJUNATH
S/O VISHWANATH SHEJWADKAR
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED,
R/O: NEW BADAMI NAGAR,
KESHWAPUR,
HUBBALLI-580020.
9. RAMESH S/O SHRIDHAR SHET
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O VAIBHAV NILAYA,
DEVIKERE ROAD,
SIRSI-581401.
10. POOJA W/O ROOPAKA VERNEKAR
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O: #71/7B SHRI.GANESH NILAYA,
BOLWER BYPASS,
PUTTUR-574201.
11. SMT.SANJANA W/O DIVYESH
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: VAIBHAV NAGAR,
BHOOTESHWARA COLONY,
SIRSI.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI : K L PATIL, ADV.)
APPEARED THROUGH V.C.)
3
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP/BY STATE PUBLIC PROCECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD
2. SMT. SHWETA @ ADITI W/O. ADARSH SHETH
AGE:28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. SANTOSH NIVASA, JULAI NAGAR
NEAR JSS SCHOOL, TQ: GANGAVATI,
DIST: KOPPAL.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1
SRI. GURURAJ R. TURAMARI, ADV. FOR R2
APPEARED THROUGH V.C.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT FILED
AGAINST THESE PETITIONERS IN CRIMINAL
MISCELLANEOUS NO.914/2016 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL
JMFC, GANGAVATI, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 18, 19, 20 & 22 OF PROTECTION OF
WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005, (IN SO
FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED).
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DUE TO COVID-19, THIS
DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the respondents No.4 to 14 in D.V.C.No.914/2016 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavati. 4
2. Heard Sri. K.L. Patil as well as Sri. G.R. Turamari, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 through V.C.
3. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the petition are as under:
A petition came to be filed under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'Act') contending that the present petitioners along with in-laws and husband drew away the second respondent-Smt. Shweta who is wife of Adarsh Shet from the matrimonial home and seeking relief of compensation to the tune of Rs.1.30 lakhs and directing the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.2.00 lakhs and to punish the respondents for having committed offence under Domestic Violence Act and Dowry Prohibition Act and such other orders.
4. Admittedly, the petitioners herein are the relatives of the husband of second respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the scope of Section 12 would not per se contemplate arraigning in the relatives of the husband of the second 5 respondent, as admittedly, they are no way connected with the petition averments and this is not a prosecution under Section 498A of IPC. Sri. K.L. Patil also submits that the present petitioners are admittedly residing away from the shared household as is defined under Section 2(s) of D.V. Act and as such, there was no commission of domestic violence by these petitioners insofar as the second respondent is concerned. Hence, petition against the present petitioners who are relatives of the husband of second respondent needs to be quashed.
6. The learned Magistrate without looking into these aspects of the matter has proceeded to issue notice to all the respondents, which is under challenge in this petition.
7. Per contra, Sri. G.R. Turamari submitted that the relatives of husband of second respondent-Shweta also had strained relationship with second respondent and her husband and as such, they also contributed for domestic violence. He also submits irrespective of the fact that they are residing elsewhere; they are necessary parties in this petition inasmuch as they also instigated the husband of the second 6 respondent in imparting the domestic violence and therefore sought for dismissal of the criminal petition.
8. Learned High Court Government Pleader also supported the impugned order and stated that the proviso 2(q) of the Act, permits the relatives of the husband can also be proceeded under the Act.
9. After hearing the parties, the only point that would arise for consideration is :
1. Whether the petitioners have make out a case for quashing the proceedings against them in D.V.C No.914/2016 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavati?
10. The answer to the above point is in the affirmative for the following :
REASONS
11. Admittedly, the petition is under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. The relief claimed in the petition are as under :
1. Pay the petitioner a compensation of Rs.1,30,00,000/-(one Crore Thirty-lakhs rupees only) approximately calculated as per the above said paragraphs.7
2. Direct to respondent No.1 to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two lakhs rupees only) per month.
3. Punish to respondents for committed offence under domestic violence act and Dowry Prohibition Act.
12. In order to appreciate the case on hand, it is just and necessary for this court to cull out the definitions of words "aggrieved person", "domestic relationship with the respondent" as is found in the statute, which reads as under:
2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) "aggrieved person" means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent;
(f) "domestic relationship" means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;8
(g) "domestic violence" has the same meaning as assigned to it in section 3;
(s) "shared household" means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household; (t) "shelter home"
means any shelter home as may be notified by the State Government to be a shelter home for the purposes of this Act.
13. On plain reading of the petition averments, it is seen that there is a bald statement made that first respondent with other respondents started to give harassment by demanding additional dowry.
14. In para No.6, the relation of the present petitioners with the husband of the second respondent is no 9 doubt stated. It is also contended that they use to frequently visit the house of the husband of the second respondent and they were making bossism on the second respondent. It is also contended that during festival season petitioners use to stay one or two months and during such stay, the second respondent was treated as maid servant.
15. On these allegations, the learned Magistrate found prima facie case and issued notice against the present petitioners.
16. As could be seen from the above, the allegations leveled against the present petitioners are very vague and bald in nature without there being any specific instances of domestic violence as is completed under Section 3 of the Act.
17. When the allegations do not contain semblance of domestic violence as per Section 3 of the Act proceeding against them by issuance of notice by learned Magistrate needs interference by this court. Moreover, as could be seen from the relief claimed in the petition as referred to supra, no specific relief whatsoever is claimed except making a bald statement that these petitioners are to be punished. 10
18. When admittedly, the present petitioners were not residing with the husband of the second respondent, they could not be considered are the persons belonging shared household as is defined under Section 2(s) of the Act. As such, they are not necessary parties for the adjudication of the dispute in question.
19. In this regard, this court gainfully relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shyamlal Devda and others V/s. Parimala, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 14, wherein it is held as under :
8. Section 18 of the Domestic Violence Act relates to protection order. In terms of Section 18 of the Act, intention of the legislature is to provide more protection to woman. Section 20 of the Act empowers the court to order for monetary relief to the "aggrieved party". When acts of domestic violence is alleged, before issuing notice, the court has to be prima facie satisfied that there have been instances of domestic violence.
9. In the present case, the respondent has made allegations of domestic violence against fourteen appellants. Appellant No.14 is the husband and appellants No.1 and 2 are the parents-in-law of the respondent. Appellants No.3, 5, 9, 11 and 12 are the brothers of father-in-law of 11 the respondent. Appellants No.4, 6 and 10 are the wives of appellants No.3, 5 and 9 respectively.
Appellants No.7 and 8 are the parents of appellant No.1. Appellants No.1 to 6 and 14 are residents of Chennai. Appellants No.7 to 10 are the residents of State of Rajasthan and appellants No.11 to 13 are the residents of State of Gujarat. Admittedly, the matrimonial house of the respondent and appellant No.1 has been at Chennai. Insofar as appellant No.14-husband of the respondent and appellants No.1 and 2-Parents-in-law, there are averments of alleging domestic violence alleging that they have taken away the jewellery of the respondent gifted to her by her father during marriage and the alleged acts of harassment to the respondent. There are no specific allegations as to how other relatives of appellant No.14 have caused the acts of domestic violence. It is also not known as to how other relatives who are residents of Gujarat and Rajasthan can be held responsible for award of monetary relief to the respondent. The High Court was not right in saying that there was prima facie case against the other appellants No.3 to 13. Since there are no specific allegations against appellants No.3 to 13, the criminal case of domestic violence against them cannot be continued and is liable to be quashed."
12
20. Applying the legal principles enunciated in the above decision to the case on hand, it is seen in the present case also except making bald statements without there being any specific details as to alleged domestic violence, present petitioners who are the relatives of husband of the second respondent and not residing with the husband of the second respondent, have been arraigned as party respondents only with an intention to harass them.
21. The learned Magistrate before issuing the notice, should have applied his mind as to the existence of prima- facie case as against the present petitioners are concerned.
22. In the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has not even noted that there exists a prima facie case against the present petitioners are concerned. The order dated 26.10.2016 whereby he issued notices to the present petitioners reads as under:
"Date: 26-10-2016 Register as Crl.misc. & put up.
Sd/-
Prl. JMFC., GVT.
Issue notices to respondents through CDPO, Gangavati returnable on 14.11 13 Sd/-
Prl. JMFC., GVT."
23. On perusal of the above order, it is crystal clear that the order is passed in a mechanical manner. Order does not indicate as to what prompted the learned Magistrate to proceed against the present petitioners also. It is needless to emphasize that issuance of process to a litigant in a matter of this nature should be only after the Magistrate gets convinced that the presence of the respondents/accused is necessary for further adjudication of the matter. The same must be indicated in the order issuing the process, if not in so many words.
24. Without there being any semblance of application of mind as to existence of prima facie case, ordering issuance of notice, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Arraigning present petitioners to the petition when no relief could be granted against them is definitely can be termed as abuse of process of law and therefore, needs interference.
25. In view of the foregoing discussions, the point is answered in the affirmative and following order is passed. 14
ORDER The order of issuance of notice as against the present petitioners under D.V.C.No.914/2016 is hereby quashed by allowing the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Consequently, the petition against the petitioners in this petition who are respondents No.4 to 14 in D.V.C. No.914/2016 is dismissed.
However, it is made clear that no opinion is expressed by this court on merits of the case insofar as husband and parents-in-law of second respondent are concerned.
Sd/-
JUDGE MNS/