Court emphasized the necessity for a substantive response to allegations before dismissing claims under domestic violence legislation.

Order

07/07/2025

1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS (482 of Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow the present criminal misc. petition and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate no.03, Jodhpur Dated 12.06.2024 and order passed by Special Judge(WAC), Jodhpur Dated 25.05.2025 may kindly be quashed and set aside with all consequential proceedings and it may be further directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioners.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Additional Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate No.3, and Additional Session Judge (Women Atrocity Cases), Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur in the impugned orders dated 12.06.2024 and 22.05.2025 while deciding the application filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking deletion of their names from the application filed on behalf of respondent No.2 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘D.V. Act’) failed to take into consideration the fact that petitioners are the mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of respondent No.2 and they were living separately from respondent No.2 and her husband.

3. Learned counsel submitted that a bare reading of the complaint submitted by the respondent No.2 would go to show that none of the allegations made therein constitute domestic violence as contemplated under D.V. Act. To substantiate this contention, learned counsel submitted that prior to filing of the complaint under D.V. Act, the husband of respondent No.2 had filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He contended that after filing of divorce petition by the husband of respondent No.2, she had lodged an FIR at Police Station Mahila Thana (Jodhpur City East), District Jodhpur City-East on 02.08.2023 under Section 498-A, 406 and 232 of the IPC against her husband and present petitioners. The police after making investigation in relation to the said FIR lodged by the respondent No.2, filed a charge-sheet on 30.11.2023 only against her husband under Section 498-A and 323 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since a case under D.V. Act has been filed against the present petitioners on totally false grounds, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside qua the present petitioners.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders.

5. From perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that though the petitioners have stated that the husband of the complainant – respondent No.2 is living separately from them but the record indicates that he is living on the first floor of the same property in which petitioners are residing. The learned Court in the impugned orders dated 12.06.2024 and 22.05.2025 have clearly noted that the contents of the complaint submitted by the respondent No.2 has specific allegations of domestic violence against the petitioners. No reply to the complaint has been submitted by the petitioners before the learned Trial Court and therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that no prima facie case exists against them and the allegations levelled against them are entirely baseless.

6. In the opinion of this Court, since the application seeking deletion of name from the array of respondents was