IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that a complaint under the DV Act is not maintainable without a defined domestic relationship, and the High Court can quash proceedings that constitute an abuse of process.

ORDER :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C' for short hereafter), seeking the relief to quash Annexure H complaint in C.M.P.No.1720/2020 on the files of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Kottarakara.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent also. Perused the relevant documents.

3. In this matter Annexure H complaint, of which Annexure G also forms part, has been filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (`DV Act' for short) by one Kunjumol Das, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kottarakara, is under challenge. The respondents in Annexures H and G are Sunny Mathew, Sam Mathew, Jolly Mathew, and Soniya Mathew. Earlier Soniya Mathew, the 4th respondent in Annexure H complaint and her minor daughter filed M.C.No.6/2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mavelikara against Anish Das, her husband and Kunjumol Das, the mother-in-law. Along with the M.C.6/2020, CMP.668/2020 was also filed. As per Annexure C order dated 30.01.2020, the learned Magistrate restrained Anish Das and Kunjumol Das from committing any act of physical or mental torture against the petitioners in the M.C, until further orders. While so, Kunjumol Das filed Annexure H complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act and the main prayer therein was to restrain respondents 1 to 4 therein from entering upon the residence of Kunjumol Das.

4. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners herein that Kunjumol Das has no locus standi to file such a petition since there is no `domestic relationship' in between Kunjumol Das and the petitioners herein, as defined under Section 2(f) of the DV Act. Therefore, Annexures G and H filed under Section 12 of the DV Act against the petitioners are not maintainable. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners further that as per the decision of this Court reported in [2010 (1) CivCC 536 : 2010 (1) ILR(Ker) 60 : 2010 KLT 79 : 2010 (6) RCR(Civ) 1046 : (2009) 0 Supreme (Ker) 989], Dr. V.K.Vijaualekshmi Amma v. Bindu & Ors., this Court held that a party against whom proceedings were initiated by the Magistrate under Section 12, on a petition filed under Section 12(1) of the Act seeking relief under Sections 18 to 23, has adequate remedy before the Magistrate, it is not for the High Court to exercise the extraordinary inherent powers and quash the proceedings, thereby it was held further that Section 482 is to be invoked in appropriate cases either to give effect to any order passed under the Act or to prevent abuse of process of any court or to secure the ends of justice, when cognizance was taken by the Magistrate for an offence under Section 31(1) or 33(1) of the DV Act. It is pointed out that in the decision of the Apex Court reported in [2011 KHC 4730 : 2011 (2) KLD 411 : 2011 (3) KHC SN 26 : 2011 (9) SCALE 295 : 2011 (3) KLJ NOC : 2011 (4) KLT SN 72 : 2011 (12) SCC 588], Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab & anr., the Apex Court exercised power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and, therefore, it could not be said that, power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C could not be invoked by the High Court.

5. Whereas it is submitted by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Kunjumol Das that the Madras High Court in [2021 0 Supreme (Mad) 1133], Mathew Jacob Chakramakal @ Mahesh v. Seema Mathew, held that inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C could not be invoked to quash proceedings under the D.V Act.

6. In this matter, the first question to be decided is; whether Kunjumol Das had any domestic relationship, as defined under Section 2(f) of the DV Act with the petitioners herein? Section 2(f) defines the meaning of `domestic relationship' as a relationship between two persons who live or lived together in a shared household, when t