The judgment emphasizes the importance of presenting defenses before the trial court and directs the expeditious disposal of cases under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for the entire proceedings pending on the file of the Special Court try cases filed under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 at Coimbatore in DVC.No.377 of 2019 (Amended as per order in Crl.MP.No.1061 of 2019 dated 28.01.2020) against the petitioner and quash the same.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the first respondent in DVC.No.377 of 2019 to quash the proceedings against him in DVC No.377 of 2019 on the file of the Special Court to try cases filed under protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 at Coimbatore (DVC No.37 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore).

2. The respondent herein has filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as the ‘DV Act’ seeking certain reliefs under the ‘DV Act’ against the petitioner herein (husband) and 11 others. Based on the said application, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore has taken the case on file as DVC No.37 of 2014 and issued notice to the respondents therein. After receipt of the notice, the first respondent therein (husband) has filed the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings against him. During pendency of this petition, the above DVC was transferred to the file of the Special Court to try cases filed under the DV Act and re-numbered as DVC.No.377 of 2019. Accordingly, this petition has been amended.

3. Heard Ms.Radhika Boopathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Ayyasamy, the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 20.02.2012. She further submitted that the petitioner is working at USA and the respondent is working as Nursing Captain in Indian Army. She further submitted that after marriage, the petitioner and the respondent hardly lived together only for 20 days. The conjugal life of the petitioner was not satisfactory with the respondent due to her behaviour. Though the petitioner tried to work out the possible ways to patch up differences in the conjugal life, the respondent never cooperated for the same and hence the petitioner had left for USA on 11.03.2012. Even thereafter, the respondent did not change her attitudes and insulted the family members of the petitioner and also threatened that since she is working in Indian Army, she can influence the police and foist a false case.

5. She further submitted that since the respondent was not willing to change her attitudes, the petitioner through his father, has filed IDOP.No.235 of 2013 on the file of the Family Court, Salem for divorce and thereafter the respondent has lodged a false complaint before the police and based on the same, FIR has been registered under Section 498-A IPC and thereafter, a chargesheet also has been filed and a case has been taken on file in CC.No.27 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore. She further submitted that not satisfied with the filing of criminal case, the respondent has filed an application under the DV Act with false allegations.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in the said application, the respondent has stated that on the very next day of the marriage i.e., on 21.02.2012 itself the petitioner has demanded dowry, but after two years only she filed a false complaint. She further submitted that the allegation that a house at Coimbatore was purchased from and out of the funds given by the respondent’s parents is false. The said house was purchased in the name of the petitioner out of the retirement benefits of the petitioner’s father. She further submitted that at no point of time, the petitioner and the respondent lived in the said house. She further submitted that the report submitted by th