ORDER

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “the BNSS”) by the respondents in M.C. No.32/2025 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur, seeking to quash the proceedings in the said M.C.

2. The essential facts necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Case are as follows:

The petitioners herein are the respondents in M.C. No.32/2025 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur, filed by the respondent herein under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, “the PWDV Act”), seeking various reliefs under the said Act. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the respondent, and the 2nd petitioner is her mother-in-law. According to the petitioners, the proceedings under the PWDV Act have been initiated by raising some false and frivolous allegations and with an ulterior motive to harass them. It is contended that, apart from certain bald allegations of threat, no specific acts of domestic violence have been alleged against the petitioners. It is further contended that, if the allegation of threat were true, the respondent would have approached the police, and the failure to lodge any such complaint itself demonstrates the falsity of the allegations. It is also contended that the present proceedings under the PWDV Act were instituted while various other disputes between the parties were pending before the Family Court and other forums and that the present proceedings were initiated as a pressure tactic. According to the petitioners, the proceedings are therefore an abuse of the process of law and are liable to be quashed.

3. Heard Sri.Shibin K.F., the learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri.Dinesh Mathew J. Muricken, the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, though the respondent had allegedly lodged complaints before various authorities against the petitioners, she had not approached the jurisdictional Magistrate by filing an application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act during that period. According to the learned counsel, this circumstance indicates that the present proceedings are an attempt to pressurise and harass the petitioners. It was further contended that, although the respondent alleges that she was subjected to acts of domestic violence in the matrimonial home, there is an unexplained delay of about six years in invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under the PWDV Act after she was allegedly ousted from the matrimonial home and separated from the 1st petitioner. According to the learned counsel, such delay casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the allegations. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that a false case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, “the POCSO Act”) was caused to be registered against the 1st petitioner by using their child. It was submitted that, after investigation, the police filed a refer report stating that the allegations were false. Though the respondent thereafter sought further investigation and the same was permitted, the report submitted pursuant to the further investigation also concurred with the earlier conclusion of the investigating agency. The 1st petitioner thereafter instituted proceedings before the Family Court, Thrissur, seeking compensation in respect of the alleged false POCSO case. According to the learned counsel, the present proceedings under Section 12 of the PWDV Act were instituted only after the respondent received notice in the said proceedings before the Family Court. It was therefore contended that the timing of the proceedings clearly indicates that the present case is retaliatory in nature and constitutes an abuse of the process of law. On the aforesaid grounds, the learned counsel sought quashing of the proceedings in limine.

5. Per contra, t