Point of Law: when the allegations are in general nature and where an omnibus allegations are made stating that these petitioners instigated her husband to demand more dowry and other allegations are also made exercised the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent in Crl.Misc.No.1716/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 12, 18(A)(f), 19(F), 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘DV Act’) on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi summoning the petitioners herein vide order dated 21.11.2020.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent herein has filed the complaint under DV Act against the petitioners and also against her husband invoking the aforesaid offences seeking the relief envisaged under Sections 18, 19 and 22 that is seeking protection against committing any act of domestic violence, causing violence on the complainant and directing the petitioners herein to stay away from the complainant or relatives or any other persons and prohibit violence against them and provide alternative accommodation and also seeking direction to pay compensation and damages for physical and mental torture and emotional distress which are caused by the acts of domestic violence by the petitioners herein and to pay the rent of Rs.10,000/-per month to the complainant for alternative accommodation and grant other relief that is police assistance. The Trial Court after considering the contents of the complaint, issued notice against these petitioners and also against her husband. Hence, the present petition is filed.

3. The main contention of the petitioners herein that these petitioners are not residing in a common shelter or they are sharing common mess. On reading of the entire complaint averments, nothing is alleged against the petitioner No.1 because he being the uncle of the respondent/complainant’s husband and hence, no complaint under Section 2 of the DV Act is maintainable. The learned Magistrate totally committed an error in issuing the summons. The petitioner No.1 resides in Sholapur and petitioner No.4 resides at Raichur. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 resides at Akkamahadevi colony, Kalaburagi and moreover they are Government servants. The story of ill-treatment, influence on the husband of the complainant demanding of additional dowry is totally false and the allegations are based upon malafide intention of the complainant to drag the petitioners to the Court of law. The learned Magistrate has not applied its mind while issuing the summons under Section 61 of Cr.P.C and not appreciated the contents of the complaint which does not constitute any offence under the provision of law and it appears to be a dispute between the complainant and her husband and the complainant had already filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights and it requires interference of this Court.

4. The counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that the very petition filed before the Trial Court is nothing but an abuse of process. Hence, this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is maintainable. The Trial Court has not passed any reasoned order while issuing the notice. The petitioners are the uncle and married sister and no relief is sought against the petitioners and the relief is also sought for protection from domestic violence and these petitioners are not residing along with the husband of the complainant and the relief which has been sought in the petition can be granted in favour of these petitioners and hence, the complaint itself is not maintainable.

5. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that this petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and issuance of notice against these petitioners cannot be challenged under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and the relief is also sought for compensation for physical and mental torture and apart from that protection is sought for domestic violence. The counsel in support of his arguments would contend that Section 2(q) of the DV Act is clear that the “respondent” means any adult male person who is, or h