Point of Law: Matrimonial Dispute - Domestic Violence - Proceedings quashed - There are no specific allegations as to how other relatives of Appellant have caused acts of domestic violence.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the proceedings arising out of application bearing No. 37/criminal, titled, Anamika Parmar and Anr. vs. Rohit Tandon and others filed under sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2010 (for short the Act) filed by the respondents against the petitioners and order dated 13.10.2018 passed in application under sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the aforesaid Act along with order dated 13.10.2010 passed in the application for interim relief by the learned Sub Judge (Special Mobile Magistrate) Poonch.

2. It is stated in the petition that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has filed the false and frivolous application under the Act. The respondent No. 2 is the minor daughter of petitioner No. 3 and respondent No. 1. It is also stated that the respondents have filed the application under the Act against the petitioners which is pending before the learned Sub Judge (Special Mobile Magistrate), Poonch, wherein the court vide order dated 13.10.2018 has issued the process against the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the proceedings arising out of said application and order dated 13.10.2018 on the following grounds:

(i) That the complaint has not been filed in accordance with the rules framed under the Jammu and Kashmir Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2010.

(ii) That in the order dated 13.10.2018, it is revealed that no preliminary statement of respondent No. 1 has been recorded by the trial court.

(iii) That, even if, the allegations levelled in the complaint are taken to be true, then also no case is made out against the petitioners.

(iv) That the allegations made in the complaint are too absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can lead to the conclusion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed in the complaint.

(v) That the allegations levelled in the complaint under the Act are entirely different and distinct from the allegations made by respondent No. 1 in her application made under section 488 Cr.P.C.

(vi) That petitioner No. 1 has been implicated by the respondents with a view to victimize her, particularly when she is already married and happily settled at her matrimonial home.

3. Mr. Rohit Kohli, learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments submitted that he does not want to press the petition on behalf of petitioner No. 3 but at the same time he submitted that there are absolutely no allegations against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 in the application filed by the respondents under the Act and the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 shall be abuse of process of law.

4. Mr. J.P. Gandhi, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the allegations are leveled against all the petitioners and the learned trial court has rightly summoned all the petitioners. He further argued that the petitioners have a remedy to file appeal under section 29 of the Act before the appellate court and the present petition is not maintainable.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. As Mr. Rohit Kohli, learned counsel has restricted his arguments to the extent of petitioner Nos. 1& 2 only, so this Court would examine only the allegations leveled against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, if any, by the respondents.

7. First of all this Court would like to observe that the application filed under section 12 of the Act is not a complaint and the word ‘complaint’ frequently used in connection with proceedings under section 12 of the Act, is a misnomer.

8. The preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents, that the petitioners have remedy of appeal and the present petition is not maintainable, is without any substance as the learned trial Court has not passed any order either under section 23 of the Act for grant of interim relief or final order but the trial court has simply issued the notice to the peti