IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Ratio of decision is apposite to the facts and circumstances.
(2) Cannot be said that no protection relief has been sought for against the present petitioner.

JUDGMENT

Shivakant Prasad, J.—In this revisional application the petitioners have sought to quash the proceedings in connection with case No. AC-14 of 2018 under Section 12/23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short D.V. Act, 2005) now pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Alipore, South 24- Parganas by assailing the order dated 18.11.2019 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2019 affirming the order dated 10.12.2018 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Alipore on an application filed under Section 25 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

2. The petitioner no. 1 is a retired Central Government employee. The petitioner no. 2 is housewife of the petitioner no. 1. Previous to the retirement of the petitioner no. 1, they used to reside at Lucknow in their own home and occasionally visit their son at Kolkata, but they reside permanently at Lucknow. The opposite party no. 2 is the daughter-in-law of the petitioners.

3. After receiving notice, the petitioners appeared before the learned Magistrate and filed an application under Section 25 of the D.V. Act, 2005, praying for deletion of their names on the grounds assigned in the said application mainly under Sections 2(a), 2(f), 2(g), 2(q), 2(s), 3, 13(1), 27 and 28 of the Act on contention that there is no specific allegations of domestic violence against the present petitioners and that mere mentioning of relevant Sections of the D.V. Act and languages of those sections are not sufficient. Particulars of offences committed by each accused persons and role played by each of them in committing the offence need to be stated as the allegations against them but the allegations made in the complaint are completely vague and unspecific.

4. It is submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the complaint suffer from antagonistic contradictions and inherent absurdity. The allegations even if, taken to be true, do not make out any cause of action giving rise to initiation of a proceeding under provisions of D.V. Act, 2005 and incidence of such domestic violence in the complaint is entirely missing since the purported allegations made in the complaint against the petitioners are inherently improbable that a prudent person could never reach a just conclusion to hold any prima facie case against them.

5. In support of such contention, Mr. Manjit Singh learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the observations made in the decision of Sri Aloy Kumar Chanda & Another Vs. The State of West Bengal & Another, (2016) 1 CalCriLR 6 which is reproduced hereunder:

16. On an analysis of the facts alleged by the opposite party no. 2 in above paragraphs of the petition of complaint I find that the allegations made by the opposite party no. 2 are vague and omnibus, because the specific date, month and year of the incidents are not disclosed in the petition of complaint. Moreover, some of the allegations are highly improbable and absurd. This court is not oblivious of the general tendency of the aggrieved person to rope in all members of family of the husband in any proceeding initiated by the wife, so that the wife can wreck vengeance on all members of family of the husband. On an analysis of facts alleged by the opposite party no. 2 in the petition of complaint I am of the opinion that no domestic violence is made out against the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 who are elder brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the opposite party no. 2, though the allegation of domestic violence is made out against the petitioner/husband. In “P. Venkatrajam and Others v. State (A.P.), (2015) 2 AICLR 900” the allegations of domestic violence made against the father-in-law and brother-in-law of the aggrieved persons were found to be vague and omnibus. In the said report, the Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed the pr