Back
2024 Supreme(Ker) 593
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Rasheed K.S., S/o. Late Sainudheen K.A. & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala & Ors. - Respondents
Crl.MC No. 10744 of 2023
Decided On : 11-07-2024
For the Petitioner: Ashik K. Mohamed Ali, Vishnu V. Nair, Muhammed Rifa P.M., Ruksana K. Zubair, Ehlas Haleema C.K., Salman Faris, Gayathri Ashish Nair.
For the Respondents: Sri. Renjit George, Senior Public Prosecutor, T.U. Sujith Kumar.
IMPORTANT POINT
The entitlement of an aggrieved person to seek reliefs provided under the DV Act in cases of domestic violence.
Headnote:
DV Act - Quashment of Proceedings - Section 482 - [Section 482] - [Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005] - [Sections 2(a), 2(f), 2(g), 3] - The court discussed the definitions of 'aggrieved person', 'domestic relationship', and 'domestic violence' under the DV Act, emphasizing the entitlement of an aggrieved person to seek reliefs provided under Sections 17 to 22 of the DV Act in cases of domestic violence. The court found that the allegations in the complaint did not warrant quashment of the proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashment of proceedings against them in a case related to domestic violence, arguing that the allegations did not attract domestic violence under the DV Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations in the complaint did not warrant quashment of the proceedings, emphasizing the entitlement of an aggrieved person to seek reliefs provided under the DV Act in cases of domestic violence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the allegations in the complaint warranted quashment of the proceedings under the DV Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the definitions of 'aggrieved person', 'domestic relationship', and 'domestic violence' under the DV Act, highlighting the entitlement of an aggrieved person to seek reliefs provided under the DV Act in cases of domestic violence.
Final Decision: The petition for quashment of proceedings failed and was dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
-
The case involves a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash proceedings initiated against the petitioners in a matter related to domestic violence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) (!) (!) .
-
The petitioners argue that there are no allegations of domestic violence or cruelty against them, and therefore, the proceedings should be quashed (!) (!) .
-
The respondents contend that the allegations suggest interference with the peaceful living of the respondent and that the matter requires trial (!) (!) .
-
The court emphasized the definitions under the DV Act, particularly:
- 'Aggrieved person' as a woman who has been subjected to domestic violence and is in a domestic relationship (!) .
- 'Domestic relationship' as a relationship between persons living or who have lived together in a shared household, related by marriage, kinship, or in a relationship akin to marriage (!) .
-
'Domestic violence' as any act or conduct that harms or endangers the health, safety, or well-being of the aggrieved person, including physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, or economic abuse (!) (!) .
-
The court noted that the allegations in the complaint, which primarily concern disturbances and disputes within a shared household, could potentially constitute domestic violence under the Act, depending on the overall facts and circumstances (!) (!) .
-
The court concluded that the allegations were neither insufficient nor omnibus to warrant quashment and that the petition for quashment should be dismissed (!) (!) .
-
The final order was to dismiss the petition and communicate the order to the trial court for implementation (!) (!) .
In summary, the court upheld the proceedings under the DV Act, emphasizing that the definitions and scope of domestic violence include acts that disturb the peaceful living and well-being of persons in a domestic relationship, and found that the allegations in this case warranted continued proceedings.
ORDER :
This is a petition filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of Annexure A1 and all further proceedings against them in M.C. No.37/2023 on the files of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.
3. The petitioners are respondents 2 to 4 in M.C. No.37/2023 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that despite having no allegations of domestic violence or cruelty, the petitioners, who are the husband of the aggrieved person, brother's wife and another brother got arrayed as respondents. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, only when there are allegations attracting domestic violence, petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('DV Act' for short hereinafter) is maintainable against the petitioners.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision reported in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh [(2007) 4 SCC 511] and the conclusions therein extracted in page Nos.14 and 15 of this Crl.M.C. to contend that mere trivial irritations, quarrels normal wear and tear of the marital life which happens day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. Going by the decision, it appears that the case dealt with by the Apex Court is a case wherein divorce was sought on the ground of cruelty and not a case dealing with the provisions of the DV Act. He also relied on the decision quoted in page Nos.9, 10, 11 and 12 of this Crl.M.C. to contend that omnibus allegations against all relatives of the husband cannot be taken at face value when in normal course it may only be the husband or at best his parents who may be accused of demanding dowry or causing cruelty. To check abuse of over implication, clear supporting materials is needed to proceed against other relatives of a husband. While considering the essentials to constitute offence under Section 498A and also while considering impleadment of the relatives of the husband without sufficient materials in a criminal case alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since nothing stated in the complaint so as to proceed against the petitioners herein, the same would require quashment.
7. Repelling these contentions, the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that going by the allegations in paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the petition (Original M.C.), the role of the petitioners by disturbing the peaceful living of the 2nd respondent in the shared house could be seen. Therefore, the matter would require trial.
8. Further, the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 pointed out the allegations in paragraph Nos.9 and 11 in the petition as extracted hereunder:-
“9. The 1st respondent did not care about any of the needs of the petitioners and he always neglected the needs of the petitioners till this time. The 2nd respondent said to the sister of the petitioner that their minor daughter is the hindrance for them to divorce the first petitioner. The respondents 2nd & 3rd have an evil eye on the income of the first respondent. The 2nd & 3rd respondents and their family living with the income of the first respondent. According to the first respondent each time the petitioners should convince the 2nd and 3rd respondents and should meet through the 2nd & 3rd respondents.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
11. Several occasions the respondents kicked us from the shared household. Each time after mediation they allowed us to enter the house. Finally in the last October when the first respondent was on leave he took the petitioners to the house of the sister of the petitioner telling the petitioner only as a visit, by believing that version th
