Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. (a) The 2nd respondent herein is the petitioner in the DV Case. The petitioners herein are the respondents 5 to 8 in the DV Case. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as petitioners and the 2nd respondent as they are arraigned in this criminal petition.

3. Now, the points for determination are -

i) Whether the petitioners have made out valid and sufficient grounds for quashing the proceedings against them in D.V. Case No.11 of 2012 on the file of learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar, Hyderabad?
The respondents 1 to 4 in the DV Case, who are not parties to the present criminal petition, are the husband, parents-in-law and the brother-in-law of the 2nd respondent herein. The petitioners herein are the respondents 5 to 8 in the DV Case. Under the lawful wedlock, the 2nd respondent has given birth to a male child by name Puneet. Since 02.11.2009, on which date the Reception was arranged, troubles had started between the spouses as the marriage was not liked by the 2nd respondents Parents-in-law as it is a love marriage and no dowry was given as expected by them. Further, on 03.11.2009, her husband had arranged a dinner for the family, friends and others in a restaurant. During the dinner party, the 2nd respondent was made to sit separately from all the family members and, her husband did not talk to her despite her request that she was feeling lonely. She was abused very badly in the presence of all the persons, who had attended that dinner party. Her parents-in-law stated to her that she had absconded from her parents house and married their son without any dowry. Her husband and parents-in-law, who all are residing in the same house, started harassing her and her parents-in-law used to ask her to bring dowry or else to take divorce so that their son can re-
5) To continue to have the custody of the child with her only.
Pursuant to the said complaint, the D.V. Case was taken on file against all the respondents therein including the petitioners herein.

4. (b) Now, the petitioners herein, who are respondents 5 to 8 in the DV Case, are seeking to quash proceedings against them in the said DV Case by inter alia contending as under:

The petitioners are strangers to the family of the 2nd respondent and her husband. On receipt of summons in the D.V. Case, the petitioners had entered their appearance and are contesting the case. The complaint given by the 2nd respondent does not disclose commission of any domestic violence as defined in Section 2(g) read with Section 3 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (the Act, for short). The petitioners do not come within the definition of domestic relationship as defined in Section 2(f) of the Act. They are not related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage. They are also not the family members living together as joint family. The contents of the petition of the 2nd respondent do not disclose any acts of so called domestic violence committed by the petitioners herein. The learned Magistrate had failed to apply his mind and had mechanically issued the summons ignoring the fact that the petitioners do not come within the purview of the provisions of the Act. It would be a mental torture for the petitioners to face the trial, which is un-necessary in the DV Case. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings in the DV Case against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the court.

4. (j) Reverting to the facts of the case, all the petitioners are residents of Prakasam District whereas the 2nd respondent is a resident of Hyderabad. Her husband, parents in law and brother-in-law are stated to be residents of Secunderabad. There is no averment in the petition of the 2nd respondent and no material is also placed on record to show that the petitioners are having or had any domestic relationship with the 2nd respondent. It is not pleaded or shown by any material brought on record that the petitioners and the 2nd respondent are living together or had lived together at any point of time in a shared household and are having or had a domestic relationship with the 2nd respondent. Further, after the proceedings in Crime No.204 of 2010 were quashed by this Court, by orders dated 04.10.2012, the present DV case was filed by the 2nd respondent. The law is well settled that in a matrimonial case like the present case, when only a casual reference is made to the relatives of the husband and there is absence of specific allegations of active involvement in the matter and when the allegations made are omnibus and vague in nature and when the un-controverted allegations made in the complaint/DV case do not disclose even a prima facie case, the continuation of the proceedings against such relatives of the husband would be an abuse of judicial process. The above view of this Court finds support from the ratio in the decision in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P . Therefore, this case is an evidently fit case to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court and secure the ends of justice.