Paramjeet Singh, J.

1. Petitioners, who are facing allegations of domestic violence, have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of complaint No. 209-2 dated 11.01.2013 along with Form No. 1 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act') and notice dated 16.07.2013 vide which petitioners have been summoned. Brief facts for disposal of present petition are that respondent-complainant filed an application under the provisions of the Act against the petitioners, husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, uncles and aunts of the husband, sons and daughters of the uncles of the husband. Petitioners No. 1, 3 and 5 are uncles of husband of respondent, petitioners No. 2, 4 and 6 are their wives, respectively whereas petitioner No. 7 is son of petitioner No. 1, petitioner No. 8 is son of petitioner No. 3 and petitioner No. 9 is married daughter of petitioner No. 1. All of them are having separate residence and mess from the husband's family. It is further averred that earlier respondent/complainant had got registered FIR under Sections 406/498-A IPC against her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law and during enquiry they were found innocent.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that petitioners are related to husband of respondent-complainant being members of an extended family, who are separate in kitchen, residence and all other respects. Even no single instance of assault, stalking or any other crime has been alleged against the petitioners and it is otherwise not a crime of domestic violence. It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that no specific allegation of harassment or cruelty has been leveled against the petitioners. All the allegations are general in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that before filing the present complaint, another application was moved before the authorities for recovery of various articles. Even an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was moved wherein there was no allegation as levelled in the present complaint. Even in the FIR no specific allegations of harassment or cruelty were levelled against the petitioners.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that petitioners are members of the joint family and have been rightly issued notice for appearance they being also responsible for causing harassment. They are not entitled to quashing of complaint rather they should follow the instructions issued by competent authority from time to time.

5. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties.

6. Before I proceed to deal with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to reproduce relevant Sections of the Act, which read as under:-

"Domestic relationship", "domestic violence" and "shared household" have been defined in Section 2 of the Act as under:-

"(f) "domestic relationship" means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.

(g) "domestic violence" has the same meaning as assigned to it in section 3.

(s) "shared household" means a household where the persons aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document