IMPORTANT POINT
Criteria of appreciating evidence/material at bail stage is different than criteria at the final judgment stage.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J.—Heard learned counsel for the respondents.

2. In this petition preferred under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners inter alia seek quashment of complaint initiated by the respondent No.1 under Section 12(i) of the Jammu and Kashmir Protection of Women Domestic Violence Act, 2010 and further quashment of order of cognizance dated 11.11.2016 and all other subsequent orders.

3. The brief facts of the case on hand are that the petitioners are the sisters of the respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 is the mother. It is averred that the respondent No.1, namely, Taranjeet Kour, is the legally wedded wife of respondent No.2. It is further averred that marriage of the respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 solemnised in the year 2005 as per Sikh Rites and Rituals. The relations between the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 remains cordial for some time and thereafter the respondent No.1 left her matrimonial home in the year 2008 and thereafter started living with her parents. The factum of the relations has been mentioned by the respondent No.1/complainant in the complaint and this fact is also admitted by the respondent No.1 that she is living separate since 2008 with her parents. It is stated that respondent No.1 after leaving the House of the respondent No.2 lodged an FIR No. 201 of 2009 under Section 498-A RPC levelling false and frivolous allegations against the respondent Nos. 2 & 3. The challan against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 was also presented on the basis of said FIR in the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate, Kathua. The respondent in the said FIR had levelled allegations only against respondent Nos. 2 & 3. It is pertinent to mention that in the said FIR and challan presented, petitioners were neither the parties nor any allegation was levelled against them by the respondent No.1. The challan on the basis of FIR No. 201 of 2009 was presented on 22.10.2009 in the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate, Kathua. It is further stated that respondent Nos. 2 & 3 along with the father of the respondent No2 have faced the trial conducted by the Special Mobile Magistrate, Kathua and after hearing the parties, the accused persons i.e. respondent Nos. 2 & 3 along with father, namely, S. Gurdev Singh acquitted by the Hon’ble Court by virtue of its Judgment dated 27.11.2014. It is stated that during the pendency of the criminal case, respondent No.1 had filed petition under Section 488 Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance against the respondent No.2 in the year 2010. The said petition was disposed of by the learned court vide order dated 21.11.2011 with the mutual consent of both the parties, whereby respondent No.1 was granted maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1600/- per month.

4. It is averred that respondent No.1 has filed a complaint against the petitioners and respondent No.2 under the Jammu and Kashmir Protection of Women Domestic Violence Act, 2010 after a gap of more than 08 years. It is averred that respondent No.1 has leveled false and frivolous allegations against the petitioners of demanding dowry, whereas the petitioners were not the parties in the FIR and neither there were any allegation against the petitioners. It is further averred that respondent No.1 has filed the present complaint only with malafide intention of harassing the petitioners as the respondent No.1 in the complaint herself has admitted that she has been living separately since 2008 in her parental home and there were not even a single allegations against the petitioners earlier in the complaint under Section 498-A RPC. It is further averred that the complaint impugned is false and frivolous in view of the fact that respondent No.1 herself has admitted in the impugned complaint that she has been living separately in her parental home since 2008 and had lodged an FIR under Section 498-A RPC in the year 2009 and in that case there was neither any allegation against the petitioners nor they were arrayed as accused in that FIR