A criminal proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act may be quashed under the inherent powers of the court if it is filed after a prolonged separation and previous related claims have been dismissed, rendering the current complaint improbable and an abuse of the process of law.

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The instant Criminal Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed, by the Petitioner / Respondent, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in D.V.C.No.133 of 2023 on the file of the Court of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

2. Heard Sri R.Siva Sai Swarup, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri K.V.Aditya Chowdary, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent No.1.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Respondent would submit that the complaint filed by Respondent No.2 herein under Domestic Violence Act is time-barred as well as baseless. Learned counsel would further submit that the parties married in February 2009, but Respondent No.2 lived with the Petitioner for only four months. Since then, they have been living separately, and thus the Domestic Violence Act, which requires ongoing cohabitation, is not applicable.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that the Petitioner was acquitted from the criminal case in C.C. No. 1613/2015 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada registered under Section 498-A IPC, on the ground that no evidence was placed to support the claims of harassment or cruelty. Respondent No.2 herein filed an appeal in CrlA.No.2801 of 2018 before this Court against the said acquittal and the same is pending. Further, Respondent No.2 also filed a maintenance petition in F.C.(M.C.)O.P.No.334 of 2016 on the file of the Court of XIV Additional District Judge-cum-Additional Family Judge, Vijayawada and the said petition, after full-fledged trial, was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, Respondent No.2 herein carried the matter to this Court in Crl.R.C.No.721 of 2022 which is pending adjudication.

It is further submitted that, on the petition filed by the Petitioner herein in F.C.O.P.No.149 of 2020 before the Family Court, Vijayawada, the marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 was dissolved, against which, Respondent No.2 filed F.C.A.No.90 of 2023 before this Court and the same is pending adjudication.

The learned counsel argues that the present complaint under the Domestic Violence Act is barred by the one-year limitation period as prescribed by Section 12 of the Act. In view of the long separation between the parties, the lack of evidence, and the dismissal of previous claims, the complaint is an abuse of process and is liable to be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that, acquittal of the Petitioner from C.C.No.1613 of 2015 cannot be a valid ground to quash the proceedings in D.V.No.133 of 2023. Respondent No.2 approached this Court by way of Crl.A.No.2801 of 2018 against the said acquittal. Similarly, dismissal of the maintenance case filed by Respondent No.2 is also not a proper ground for quashment of the present case.

It is further argued that, though Respondent No.2 had lived with the Petitioner for a limited period to time, it does not invalidate the abuse against Respondent No.2 nor does it exclude the Petitioner from liability under the Act. It is settled law that the term domestic relationship under the D.V.Act clearly means any relationship between two individuals who are living together or have lived together in the past in a shred household. Hence, the ground that the Petitioner does not have a marital life with Respondent No.2 would be irrelevant as they have admittedly led a marital life in the past.

It is further