IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7401/2012 BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Shashikala M.V., Aged about 54 years, W/o Sri. S.V.Suresh.
2. Sri.S.V.Suresh, Aged about 64 years, S/o Sri. S.Veerappa Petitioners No.1 and 2 are R/at No.10/12, 1st cross, 1st Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560011.
3. Smt.Suma Aswathanarayanappa, Aged about 52 years, W/o Sri.J.Aswathanarayanappa.
4. Sri.Ashwathanarayanappa, Aged about 52 years, S/o Sri.J.Venkatappa Petitioners No.3 and 4 are R/at No.62-F, First Floor, 6th Main, 5th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 041.
…Petitioners (By Sri.G. Vikram, Advocate) AND:
1. Smt.C.Brunda, Aged about 55 years, W/o late M.V.Prakash, R/at No.62-F, Ground Floor, 6th Main, 5th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560041.
2. M.P.Shreyas, Aged about 16 years, S/o late Sri. M.V.Prakash, 3. M.P.Chaithanya Aged about 13 years, S/o Late Sri. M.V.Prakash Proposed respondents are Minors represented by their Mother and natural guardian The 1st respondent Viz. Smt. Brunda Aged about 46 years, R/at No.62-F, Ground Floor, 6th Main, 5th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560041.
...Respondents (By Sri. C.V. Srinivas & Sri. Raghavendra K.,Advs.) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the orders passed by the M.M.T.C.-IV, Bangalore taking cognizance of the Crl.Misc.No.127/2012 filed by the Respondent under Section 12, 18, 19, 20(3) and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 vide Annexure A etc.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioners have sought to quash the order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court –IV, Bangalore, taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20(3) and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) in Crl.Misc.No.127/2012.
2. The Respondents herein presented a complaint under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20(3) and 22 of the Act for the following prayers:
“(i) Pass an order of protection against the respondents restraining and prohibiting them from committing any further acts of domestic violence on the petitioners/aggrieved such as:
(ii) causing any mental or physical violence on the petitioners/aggrieved such as abusing or assaulting or menacing or threatening the petitioners/aggrieved in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) Pass an order restraining the respondents from entering the residence of the petitioner/aggrieved located in the ground floor of the property bearing No.62-F, 6th Main, 5th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore;
(iv) Pass an order directing the respondents 1 and 3 to deposit the rents collected by them into the account of the first petitioner which she has maintained vide Account No.4742200011451 at the Syndicate Bank, Jayanagar, 5th Block Branch, Bangalore, after deducting the exact amount needed for the maintenance of the building including the payment of the municipal tax for the building, so that the petitioners 2 and 3 can utilize the said amount for their living, maintenance and educational expenses; OR pass an order directing the respondents 1 and 3 to pay Rs.50,000/- per month for maintenance of the petitioners.
(v) Pass an order directing the respondents 1 to 6 to return the silver articles and gold ornaments back to the petitioner.
(vi) issue a direction to the respondents for payment of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as damages/compensation for the injuries, mental torture and emotional disturbance caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondents against the petitioners/aggrieved.
(vii) grant to the petitioners such other and further relief/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the costs towards litigation, in the ends of justice.”
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the aforesaid complaint came to be filed by the first Respondent after the death of her husband and mother-in-law. The mother-in-law of the first Respondent was the owner in possession of all the immovable properties and assets in respect of which she has executed her last Will and testament dated 22/03/2004. A reading of the complaint would indicate that under the Will alleged to have been executed by the mother-in-law of the first respondent, Master M.P. Chaitanya, the son of the first Respondent would acquire right to the properties only on his attaining the age of 30 years and until then the properties are required to be jointly managed by petitioners 1 and 3 herein. Therefore, there was no cause of action for the Respondent to seek the reliefs against the petitioners under the Domestic Violence Act. The claim of the complainant would only indicate that she is asserting her right under the Will and if for any reason the bequests made therein are denied to her, appropriate remedy is available to the Respondent to take recourse to civil action rather than invoke the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court making a false and frivolous allegation and hence he seeks to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners.
4. Refuting the said contention, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent however would submit that the first Respondent is not disputing the validity of the Will or the bequests made therein, rather the grievance of the Respondent is that the bequests made in the Will are sought to be defeated by the petitioners by unlawfully taking possession of the entire properties and assets. She has been denied the rental income of the properties even though she is bequeathed with different items of the properties. Further, the petitioners are restraining the free movements of the respondent and are creating interference in her enjoyment and possession of the properties. Hence, the Respondent is well within her rights to seek for protection orders under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act.
5. Further, the learned counsel for Respondents has pointed out that after the filing of the present petition, the learned Magistrate has rejected the application filed by the petitioners herein seeking their discharge under Section 245 Cr.P.C. The said order was challenged before the Fast Track Court No.VIII at Bangalore and by order dated 25/06/2014 in Crl. Appeal No.361/2013, the appeal filed under Section 29 of the Act by Respondent No.3/petitioner No.3 herein - Smt. Suma Aswathanarayanappa has been dismissed. Therefore there is absolutely no ground available for the petitioners to seek quashing of the proceedings.
6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and on going through the allegations made in the complaint, I am unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute raised by the Respondents is civil in nature. No doubt in the complaint, she has stated about the Will executed by her late mother-in-law, but nowhere she has disputed the validity of the said Will as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
7. According to the first Respondent, she has equal right in the immovable properties and the properties left behind by her mother-in-law and she is entitled to the use and income thereof but the petitioners are high handedly interfering with her possession and depriving her the benefits of the said properties. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the complaint lodged by the petitioners does not make out any of the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners. In the complaint she has specifically narrated the various instances of harassment meted out to her in the matter of her right of residence as well as in utilizing the income from the properties. The allegations made by the petitioners squarely fall within the meaning of Sections 12, 18, 19, 20(3) and 22 of the Act.
8. Having regard to prima facie material available on record, the learned Magistrate has even rejected the application filed by the petitioner No.3 under Section 245 of Cr.P.C. The appeal against the said order also has been rejected as back as in 2014 and there is no further challenge to the said order. The said order has attained finality, making it evident that the offences alleged against the petitioners squarely attract the offences under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20(3) and 22 of the Act.
9. For all the above reasons, the Trial Court was justified in taking cognizance of the above offences and issuing process to the petitioners. I do not find any justifiable ground to exercise the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in the fact situation of the case.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE BMV*