The court quashed proceedings under the D.V. Act due to insufficient evidence against the co-respondents, emphasizing the need to avoid abuse of legal processes.

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA)

1. The petitioners being respondent Nos.2 to 8 in Crl.Misc. No. 626/2024 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Sindhanur [for short ‘Trial Court’] filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act , 2005 [for short ‘D.V. Act’], are seeking to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against them. The respondent herein is the petitioner in the said proceedings.

2. Heard Smt. Anita M. Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials on record. 3. The parties are hereinafter referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

4. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsels for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the respondent Nos.2 to 8 (petitioner Nos.2 to 8) is liable to be quashed invoking inherent power under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023?”

My answer to the above point is ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

R E A S O N S

5. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, seeking various orders of protection against the respondents. Respondent No.1 is the husband of the petitioner; respondent No.2 is mother of respondent No.1, respondent Nos.3 and 5 are the sisters of respondent No.1; respondent No.4 is the husband of respondent No.3; respondent No.6 is the husband of respondent No.5, respondent No.7 is the brother of respondent No.1; and respondent No.8 is the wife of respondent No.7. As per the petition filed before the Trial Court, the petitioner is the resident of Sindhanur, as she is working there. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 are the residents of Kalaburagi. Respondent Nos.7 and 8 are the residents of Devdurga of Raichur. The petitioner has narrated in detail about her marriage with respondent No.1 and various acts committed by respondent Nos.1 to 8. Much of the allegations against the respondents were during the year 2020, however, the petition under the D.V. Act came to be filed on 16.04.2024.

6. The admitted facts are that, the marriage of respondent No.1 with petitioner was solemnized on 03.07.2017 and they have begotten a son during 2018. Respondent No.1 sought for divorce by filing M.C. No.125/2020 before the Family Court at Kalaburagi. In the meantime, the petitioner has filed M.C. No.53/2020 before the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Sindhanur, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. It is stated that both these petitions are pending for consideration before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Sindhanur, 7. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the respondents in Crime No.192/2020 alleging commission of offence under Section 498A, 341, 504, 506 and 109 read with Section 149 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the final report is already filed in the said case, pending in C.C. No.2280/2021. O.S. No.126/2021 was filed amongst the respondents for partition and it is stated that the said suit is already compromised. Respondent No.1 had filed a suit in O.S. No.222/2021 against the petitioner, seeking maintenance. It is stated that the same came to be dismissed. The petitioner has filed a suit in O.S. No.284/2022 against respondent No.1 seeking permanent injunction to restrain him from undergoing second marriage. O.S. No.317/2023 was filed by the petitioner against the defendants therein alleging that she is the second wife of respondent No.1. A private complaint in P.C. No.432/2022 was filed against respondent No.1 alleging commission of the offence punishable under Sections 494 and 109 of IPC and finally Criminal Misc. No.626/2024 was filed under