The court ruled that proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C are not maintainable when an alternative remedy exists under the DVC Act, emphasizing the importance of statutory remedies.

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner to quash the proceedings against her in D.V.C.No.62 of 2023 pending on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri.

2. Heard Mr. Syed Riyazuddin, learned counsel for petitioner, and Ms. S. Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State. Perused the material on record.

3. A petition under Sections 12, 18, 19 and 21 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the DVC Act, 2005’) is filed by respondent No.1/complainant. Allegations in the petition are that she is married to Sudheer, on 25.02.2021 and at the time of marriage certain amount of cash and household articles were given and that marriage was performed on the facilitation by petitioner. Petitioner herein is the sister of Sudheer.

4. It is stated in the petition that respondent No.1’s marriage was performed with Sudheer without discussing the fact that her husband was suffering from psychological disorder and that his previous marriage was broken because of his psychological disorder. It is further alleged that respondent No.1’s husband has been harassing her physically and mentally and necked her out from the house. It is also alleged that her husband used to abuse her, her brother and parents in filthy language and that Sudheer’s unpredictable and psychotic behaviour has caused lot of mental trauma to her.

5. It is alleged that at the behest of petitioner, marriage is performed and petitioner instigates Sudheer and her husband was harassing her, her parents and brother. Hence the compliant. It is also alleged that her husband threatened to kill her.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that allegations made are baseless and false. It is further submitted that petitioner is not residing in the same house as alleged by respondent No.1. It is also submitted that charge sheet is filed against petitioner under Section 498-A of IPC. That the address of the petitioner in the charge sheet is different to that of the address shown in the DVC petition. It is pointed out that the petitioner herein was residing at the address in the charge sheet for the last 10 years along with her husband and it is correct address. It is submitted by learned counsel that in the charge sheet filed, the investigating authority has stated the correct address, whereas an incorrect address was mentioned in DVC petition only to rope the petitioner for creating ground of harassment. It is further submitted that the allegations levelled against petitioner in the DVC petition are false and are only to implicate petitioner in the DVC proceedings.

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that once an application/petition is filed under Section 12 the DVC Act, 2005, the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C are not maintainable before this Court and that there is an alternative remedy available under Section 29 of the DVC Act, 2005 and petitioner has to approach appropriate Court by filing of an application.

8. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions.

9. Respondent No.1/complainant filed a complaint alleging that petitioner has arranged marriage with her brother- Sudheer with respondent No.1. On perusal of the petition it is observed that there are no specific allegations against petitioner except stating that petitioner has instigated her brother Sudheer.

10. Charge sheet is filed, statements are recorded. Address of the petitioner in charge sheet is Lokanada Street, K.l.Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, while the address of the petitioner in DVC.No.62 of 2023 is Nakkiran Street, Alwar Thiru Nagar, Vala