IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6206 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. SRI SYED IRSHAD JANI S/O LATE HIDAYATULLA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RTD. WING COMMANDER, R/AT H NO.17/150, NEERUGUNTI STREET, OLD TOWN ANANTAPUR-500 009 2. MRS SYEDA NOORUNNISA W/O SYED IRSHAD JANI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT H NO.17/150 NEERUGANTI STREET, OLD TOWN, ANANTAPUR-500 009 3. MRS SYEDA UMAISA BANU D/O SYED IRSHAD JANI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT H NO.17/150, NEERUGUNTI STREET, OLD TOWN, ANANTAPUR-500 009 4. MRS SYEDA WASIMA W/O. SYED IRSHAD JANI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT 13-78-A, CHAKALI STREET, JAMMAL MADUGU-516 434 CAUDAPA DISTRICT 5. MRS SYEDA AFEEFA D/O SYED IRSHAD JANI, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT H NO.17/150, NEERUGANTI STREET, OLD TOWN, ANANTAPUR-500 009 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: V. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE) AND MRS SYEDA AMATHUL HABEEB ALIAS SYEDA SHAZIYA BANU W/O SYED MUNEEB, D/O SYED NOORULLAH BASHA KHADRI, PRESENTLY R/AT H NO.40, I A CROSS, RMV II STAGE, BHOOPASANDRA, BANGALORE-560021. ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT : GEETHARAJ, ADVOCATE-ABSENT) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRL.MISC.NO.28/2016 ON THE FILE OF IV M.M.T.C., BANGALORE.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioners.
Counsel for respondent is absent.
2. Petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 6 are aggrieved by the initiation of proceedings against them under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violation Act(hereinafter referred to as ‘D.V. Act’).
3. The main contention urged by learned counsel for petitioners is that the petition does not contain any averments against the petitioners constituting the ingredients of Section 12 of the D.V. Act. All the allegations made therein relate to accused No.1. Solely on account of the fact that petitioner No.4 filed a case against the brother of respondent, petitioners have been implicated in the above proceedings which is illegal and abuse of process of court.
I have gone through the averments made in the petition.
4. A reading of the petition and the addresses furnished therein indicate that the respondent herein was residing with accused No.1 in their matrimonial home at Bengaluru. There is nothing in the entire petition to suggest that any of the petitioners herein have been in domestic relationship with the respondent. The averments made in the petition go to show that the petitioners were in visiting terms with the respondent. All the allegations pertain to domestic violence by accused No.1. Insofar as the present petitioners are concerned, the only averment made in the petition is that when respondent’s parents and brother questioned the petitioners about the harassment caused to respondent, as accused no.1 was carrying on relationship with one B. Rajeswari, a close friend of petitioner No.3 (accused No.4), all the petitioners herein are stated to have created a row. These averments even if accepted as true, do not render the petitioners answerable to the reliefs claimed in the application. Reliefs claimed in the application read as under:-
A) Pass protection order under Section 18 1. Prohibiting the respondents from repeating any of the acts committed under domestic violence- physically causing harm, injuring, insulting, name calling, defaming her by the respondents as stated above.
2. Prohibit the respondents from approaching the aggrieved person.
3. Restrain the respondents from posing life threats to aggrieved person, and her parents as stated above.
4. Restrain the respondents from entering residence house and threatening, intimidating her over the phone.
B) Pass an order to the aggrieved person by directing the respondent No.1 to pay an interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month for livelihood and for the welfare of the petitioner, and Rs.10,000/- towards petitioner’s son educational, food, shelter etc., pending disposal of the case.
C) Residence order under Section 19 I. Direct the first respondent to provide alternative separate residence by paying monthly rental, electricity, water and gas charges to the house.
D) Compensation order Under Section 22 I. Direct the first respondent to grant a compensation or damages as per section 22 a lump sum amount of 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) for domestic violence, mental torture pain and suffering, physical, mental and emotional trauma suffered by the petitioner.
Since accused No.1 alone is in domestic relationship with the respondent, he alone is liable for the reliefs claimed in the application filed under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. In that view of the matter, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein being contrary to the provisions of law are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Proceedings initiated in Crl.Misc.No.28/2016 on the file of learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court, Bengaluru is quashed only insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-