IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH th ON THE 10 OF DECEMBER, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39973 of 2024 SMT. V. KRISHNAMMA AND OTHERS Versus GARIMA BAIS Appearance:

Shri Vinay Pratap Singh - Advocate for petitioners.

Shri Sudhir Dandwate- Advocate for respondent.

ORDER The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS (Section 482 of CrPC) has been preferred by the petitioners / accused for quashment of proceedings of 28th of May, 2024 filed by respondent /complainant before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore under the provisions of 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as ‘the DV Act of 2005’) pending before the Court of JMFC, Indore in MJCR No. 18434 of 2024 (new No.1860/2024).

Main allegation of petitioners is that the petitioners being the in-laws of the respondents, have been living separately and they have never resided in a ''shared household'' with the respondent. After marriage, the respondent has been living in a rented premises in Bangalore which was rented in her own name. Thereafter, the respondent also established her business the same address which clearly indicates her independent residence with her husband.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA No case is made out for commission of domestic violence is made out against the petitioners.

A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the complainant to the effect that this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C for challenging proceedings under the DV Act of 2005 pending before the trial Court is not maintainable since as of now only application under Section 12 of the DV Act of 2005 has been filed by the complainant and no order has been passed under any Section of the Act. As long as the proceedings are continuing, they are of civil nature and partake the character of criminal proceedings only upon passing of an order under the Act, 2005 which is then breached. Therefore, the instant petition be dismissed as not maintainable.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the proceedings under the DV Act of 2005 are governed by Cr.P.C and for quashment of criminal proceedings, a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C would certainly be maintainable. The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C can be invoked for redressal of grievance of any party at any time and it is not mandatory to wait for an order to be passed under the DV Act of 2005 before invoking the jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, the present petition is maintainable in the eyes of law.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record as well as relevant provisions of DV Act of 2005.

“12. Application to Magistrate.—(1) An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act:

Provided that before passing any order on such application, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider. (2) The relief sought for under sub-section (1) may include a relief for issuance of an order for payment of compensation or damages without prejudice to the right of such person to institute a suit for compensation or damages for the injuries caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondent:

Provided that where a decree for any amount as compensation or damages has been passed by any court in favour of the aggrieved person, the amount, if any, paid or payable in pursuance of the order made by the Magistrate under this Act shall be set off against the amount payable under such decree and the decree shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of1908), or any other law for the time being in force, be executable for the balance amount