SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Bom) 1891

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT NAGPUR BENCH
R.B. Deo, J.
Madhusudan Murarilal Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Jyotsna Nilesh Sharma and Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Application (APL) No. 206 of 2015
Decided On : 28-03-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : R.S. Sirpurkar and S. Agrawal
For the Respondent: M.K. Pathan, Addl. P.P.

Headnote:

Women from Domestic Violence Act - Section 2(f) - Questioning of tenability of proceedings instituted by non-applicant - Domestic relationship - Meaning of - Counsel for the applicant and Shri M.K. Pathan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant 2/State of Maharashtra - None appears on behalf of non-applicant 1, Counsel for applicant would submit that the complaint under DV Act is an abuse of process of law - This submission is predicated on assertion that the complainant and present applicant were/are not in "domestic relationship" within meaning of Section 2(f) of DV Act - wWhether on the face of the averments in the complaint, could cognizance have been taken under the provisions of the DV Act - Held, DV Act is enacted to provide for more effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 2(a) defines "aggrieved person" - 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 - It is not necessary to make any decisive observation on the submission that complaint under the DV Act is lodged mala fide - Suffice it to hold that reading complaint as a whole jurisdictional facts which alone would clothe the learned Magistrate with jurisdiction to take cognizance of proceedings are not established - Even accepting averments in complaint, it cannot be said that the complainant Smt. Jyotsna is or was in a domestic relationship with applicant, who is cousin brother of Smt. Jyotsnas husband - Application allowed.

JUDGMENT :

R.B. Deo, J.

1. The applicant-Madhusudan Murarilal Sharma is questioning the tenability of the proceedings instituted by non-applicant Smt. Jyotsna Nilesh Sharma under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act ("DV Act" for short). The objection to the tenability of the proceedings is rejected by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court 1, Khamgaon, by order dated 05-2-2014 and Criminal Revision 46/2014 preferred by the applicant is dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon by judgment dated 08-10-2014.

2. Heard Mrs. R.S. Sirpurkar, learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri M.K. Pathan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant 2/State of Maharashtra. None appears on behalf of non-applicant 1-Smt. Jyostna Nilesh Sharma.

3. Mrs. R.S. Sirpurkar, learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that the complaint under the DV Act is an abuse of the process of law. This submission is predicated on the assertion that the complainant and the present applicant were/are not in "domestic relationship" within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the DV Act. The extension of the said submission is that even if the averments in the complaint are taken at face value, no case of domestic violence is made out.

4. In the context of the submission canvassed, it would be necessary to peruse the complaint dated 15-10-2011 which is forwarded by the complainant Smt. Jyotsna to the Superintendent of Police, Women's Assistance Cell (Police), Buldhana. The said complaint was forwarded by the officer to the Naib-Tahsildar who submitted report under Section 5(1) and (2) and Section 17(3) of the DV Act. The said report was forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court 1, Buldhana and Miscellaneous Criminal Case 48/2012 was registered under the provisions of the DV Act.

The applicant herein is the cousin brother of Shri Nilesh Sharma-the husband of the complainant Jyotsna. The complaint forwarded by Smt. Jyotsna to the concerned officer reads thus:

"Shri Lakshmi Gautam, IPS,

Superintendent of Police

(The State Assistance for Violence against Women) &

Women's Assistance Cell (Police), Buldhana (M.S.)

Respected Sir,

Reg.: Wrongful confinement of helpless woman-request for action under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2055 and Rules 2006 thereunder-request for SOS help.

With great agony and pain, I wish to invite your kind attention towards the physical and mental agony I am suffering for more than one and half year due to the torture by the relatives of my in-laws.

I married to Mr. Nilesh K. Sharma, and staying at the second floor of the ancestral property of the in-laws whose relatives are staying at first and ground floor from where the entrance is provided to my floor. For last one and half years, my husband's cousin brother Mr. Madhusudhan M. Sharma (address as below) is torturing me physically and mentally. I am also put in wrongful confinement by closing the entrance of my rooms and I am unable to move out even for medical treatment. My husband has already approached various authorities to save me out of the wrongful confinement however, inspite of initiative by police authorities etc. and filing several FIRs against the accused person Mr. Madhusudhan, he is not ready to abide by the law of land nor obey the directives of the Police Authorities. Moreover, the accused person and his supporters impersonated to the MSEB mala fidely and got the electricity connection of my house disconnected by hook or crook and I am staying in dark rooms for more than a year. It may be noted that, several number of criminal cases have been filed by the Police against the accused person for indulging into criminal activities as under:

Sr. No.

FIR No. & Date

U/s. Of I.P.C.

Court case No.

Name of Party

01

165/08, 10/8/08

341, 143, 323 & 506

808/2008

State Vs. Adv. M

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top