The judgment emphasizes the need to scrutinize allegations of domestic violence and dowry demands to prevent potential misuse of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

JUDGMENT

H.S. Madaan, J. - This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioner - Bawinder Verma seeking quashing of the criminal complaint bearing No.486/2013 dated 21.8.2013 titled as "Richa Sharma through her attorney Sh.A.K. Sharma Versus Tarun Verma and Others", pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula filed under Sections 12, 18, 19, 22, 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the complainant Richa Sharma had filed a petition under Sections 12, 18, 19, 22 and 23 of the Act against her husband - Tarun Verma, father-in-law - Suraj Parkash Verma, mother-in-law - Sarlesh Verma and brother-in-law Bawinder Verma. That petition was filed by her through her father and attorney Col.A.K. Sharma (Retd.). In the petition the complainant has contended that she was married with Tarun Verma on 12.11.2010 at Panchkula; that she was treated by respondents with cruelty during her stay in the matrimonial home and at various other places; that she was harassed and tortured on account of dowry demands despite the fact that the complainant had already paid her entire saving amount i.e. the amount saved from her salary after marriage to respondents and her parents had spent a lot of money at the time of her marriage giving considerable gifts. In the petition several incidents of alleged cruelty perpetrated upon her by respondents/accused have been mentioned. The respondents were summoned, who put in appearance.

3. An application for dismissal of the petition was filed by the respondents challenging the jurisdiction of the Court at Panchkula to entertain the petition stating that after marriage at Panchkula, the parties had started residing at Patiala, where they stayed for two weeks and thereafter went to Banglore, where both of them were working with a multinational company; that no incident of domestic violence took place; that as a matter of fact the parties have never resided together at Panchkula even for a single day. This application was contested by the complainant stating that she works at Bangalore but her permanent address is of Panchkula, therefore, she had filed the petition there; that the incidents of domestic violence against her were so cruel that she faced extreme mental anguish and agony, therefore, the Court at Panckula had jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition. The application of the respondents was dismissed.

4. Notice of the petition was issued to respondent, who put in appearance through counsel.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going through the record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is brother-in-law (sister's husband of Tarun Verma); that there was no occasion for the petitioner to interfere in the matrimonial life of the complainant and Tarun Verma and she has wrongly dragged the petitioner in such litigation; that as a matter of fact, the marriage between Tarun Verma and Richa Sharma was second marriage for both of them, which was performed in a very simple manner and there could not be any demand of dowry; that after marriage the new wedded couple went to Malaysia on 15.11.2010 and then to Banglore on 26.11.2010 since Tarun Verma was employed in Banglore as a Software Engineer there; that Richa Sharma would however, pick up quarrels with her husband without any rhyme and reason on petty matters; that fed up with such behaviour of Richa Sharma, Tarun Verma had informed her parents in that regard, who gave an assurance that their daughter would not repeat any mistake in future; that the complaint by her is gross abuse of process of law. The impugned order passed has no legs to stand.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the present petitioner has also joined his in-laws family in harassing and torturing the complainant