IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-26699-2015 Decided on:- 13.02.2026 Basant Singh ....Petitioner Versus Harmeet Kaur ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present:- Mr. Sarabjit Singh, Advocate with Ms. Gurvinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Dilpreet S. Gandhi, Advocate for the respondent.

* * * * *

AMARJOT BHATTI, J.

1. Petitioner Basant Singh filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of impugned order dated 04.07.2015 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide which order dated 20.02.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, in Complaint Case No. 202/17.10.2007, titled “Harmeet Kaur Vs. Manbir Singh and others” has been set aside in a wrongful manner, with further prayer that during the pendency of petition, operation of impugned order dated 04.07.2015 (Annexure P-4) may kindly be stayed or any other relief which the Court may deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of case.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that respondent Harmeet Kaur filed application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘DV Act’) on the ground that her daughter Amrinder Kaur was married with Manbeer Singh son of petitioner on 09.02.2005. In application, there are allegations of harassment on account of insufficient dowry. Application filed under Section 12 of DV Act is Annexure P-1. Present petitioner filed application for dismissal of aforesaid application. Copy of application dated 20.02.2013 is Annexure P- 2. After getting reply, said application was allowed by passing detailed order dated 20.02.2014 (Annexure P-3). In fact, as per contents of application, daughter of respondent left matrimonial home on 31.03.2006. This fact is also confirmed by Protection Officer in Domestic Incident Report dated 24.09.2008. Since then daughter of respondent was not residing with her husband for last about two years. In reply submitted by respondent (petitioner in main case), she admitted that her daughter has performed marriage by taking exparte decree of divorce dated 25.05.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar (Annexure P-5) and is settled abroad. Said application under Section 12 of DV Act has been filed only to harass petitioner. Respondent filed revision against order dated 20.02.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar and said revision was wrongly allowed by holding that as per provisions of Domestic Violence Act, no period of limitation has been prescribed. By passing impugned order dated 04.07.2015 (Annexure P-4), case has been remanded back to trial Court to decide matter afresh on merits. Impugned order dated 04.07.2015 (Annexure P-4) is liable to set aside as sole purpose of respondent (petitioner in main case) is to harass petitioner (respondent in main case) and his family members. At present, daughter of respondent re-

married after obtaining exparte decree of divorce and has moved ahead. Criminal proceedings were initiated with malafide intention and with ulterior motive on account of their personal grudge. It is submitted that petition preferred by petitioner may be allowed, by upholding order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar dated 20.02.2014 (Annexure P-3) and by setting aside impugned order dated 04.07.2015 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar.

3. Learned counsel representing respondent opposed present petition by taking the stand that there are serious allegations levelled in petition under Section 12 of DV Act (Annexure P-1). Daughter of respondent Harmeet Kaur faced domestic violence in matrimonial home and was turned out of the house on 31.03.2006. Thereafter, application under DV Act was filed by mother of girl on 12.08.2008. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar by passing impugned order dated 04.07.2015 (Annexure P-4) rightly came to conclusion tha