ORDER

The captioned petition is filed by the petitioners who are respondent Nos.2 and 3 in Crl.Misc.No.102/2019 and sister-in- law and mother-in-law respectively of respondent No.1 herein seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crl.Misc.No.102/2019 for the offences punishable under Section 12 read with Sections 18, 19(f), 20 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. The respondent No.1 who is the daughter-in-law of petitioner No.2 has filed Crl.Misc.No.102/2019 against her husband/respondent No.4 and against the petitioners alleging that the petitioners taking undue advantage of ill-health of husband of respondent No.1 have created documents. The respondents have also alleged that they have forcibly taken respondent No.4/husband to Mumbai under the garb of treatment, just to cause mental cruelty to the respondents and to grab the properties of respondent No.4 by illegal means. It is also alleged that in the month of November 2018 under the garb of providing treatment to respondent No.4/husband, the petitioners have siphoned the money lying in the Bank. It is also alleged in the petition filed by the respondents that petitioners herein issued legal notice for having admitted respondent No.4/husband in Bhaita Hospital and called upon respondent No.1/wife to pay expenses to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-. On these set of allegations, petition came to be filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would vehemently argue and contend that the offences indicated in the petition filed in Crl.Misc.No.102/2019 are not at all attracted. He would point out that petitioner No.1 was transferred to Mumbai by her company and since then, petitioner No.2 lives in Mumbai, while respondents are residents of Bengaluru which is clearly evident from the cause title of the petition filed in Crl.Misc.No.102/2019. Referring to para 13 of the petition filed in Crl.Misc.No.102/2019, he would further point out that respondent No.4 who is the husband of respondent No.1 was shifted to Mumbai for further treatment as he was diagnosed with rare brain cancer. Referring to these significant details, he would further bring to the notice of this Court that respondent No.4 is no more and he died on account of cancer and therefore, he would contend that the allegations made in the petition are totally false, frivolous and the same is filed to extract money from the present petitioners herein. He would further point out that all medical expenses is borne by the petitioners and respondent No.1/wife has been thoroughly negligent and irresponsible and has not taken any steps to take care of respondent No.4/husband.

4. Placing reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Shyamlal Devda and Others vs. Parimala1, he would contend that respondents/complainant being residents of Bengaluru cannot maintain a petition under the provisions of Section 27 of the Act. He has also placed reliance on unreported judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench in the case of Smt. Radhabai & Another vs. Smt. Anita2. Referring to the said judgment, he would point out that except vague allegations and having regard to the fact that petitioners and respondents never shared common household could not have invoked Section 12 of the Act.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would however point out that serious allegations are made in the petition and therefore, the petition cannot be

1 (2020) 3 SCC 14

2 Crl.P.No.101305/2019 Dtd: 14.11.2022

dismissed at threshold and such recourse is not permissible under Section 482. He would further point out that there are specific averments of domestic violence and the material placed on record constitutes a prima facie case against the petitioners and therefore, he would submit to this Court that this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.