Court:MADRAS HIGH COURT
Bench: JUSTICE C.T. Selvam
C. CHANDRAMOHAN & ANR. Vs. VARSHA & ANR. On 23 January 2014
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Section 12 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Domestic Violence — Allegation against brother of husband — Quashing of proceeding – Complaint allegations not only inherently improbable but tainted by mala fides.
1. This petition has been filed sunder Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records of D.V.A. No. 10 of 2013 on the file Judicial Magistrate No. VII, Coimbatore and quash the same.
2. Petitioners who are the respondents 2 and 3 in case pending in D.V.A. No. 10 of 2013 on the file of VII Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, seeks to quash all the proceedings as against them.
3. Learned Counsel for petitioners submits that the proceedings in D.V.A. No. 10 of 2013 are pending pursuant to a petition filed under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act. First and second petitioners are husband and wife. Such petitioners as also the second respondent/ brother of the first petitioner are accused of acts of Domestic Violence in the complaint preferred by the first respondent. Learned Counsel for petitioners submits that even as per complaint of the first respondent, she and her husband the second respondent were sent out of the family home in 2005. The complaint further informs that the first respondent and her husband/A 1 left the first respondent’s parents house and even thereafter illtreatment and torture by her husband continued. While admittedly the first respondent and her husband/A 1 have been living separately since 2005, a complaint stands registered in the year 2012 making wild allegations against the petitioners and of their having committed acts of domestic violence against the complainant/first respondent upto 2005.
4. Learned Counsel would submit that it was pertinent to note the Domestic Incident Report of Social Welfare Office, Coimbatore dated 17.12.2012, informs of acts of domestic violence having been committed only by the husband of the complainant/first respondent. There has been no domestic relationship between the petitioners and the first respondents family since 2005. The petitioners could not be now called to answer charges of domestic violence under the complaint dated. 11.10.2012.
5. Learned Counsel for the first respondent submits that she and the brother of the first petitioner, the first accused were married on 13.9.1999. The first respondent then was only 14 years of age. According to the first respondent, acts of domestic violence were carried out by both the husband, brother-in-law of the first respondent and his wife upto 2005. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in V.D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot, I (2012) DMC 482 (SC)=187 (2012) DLT 295 (SC)=II (2012) SLT 83=I (2012) CCR 412 (SC)=(2012) 2 SCC (Cr.) 2012, learned Counsel submits that the conduct of the parties even prior to the coming into force of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, could be taken into consideration. Therefore, she submits that it would be appropriate for the petitioners to face the trial.
6. We have considered the rival submissions.
7. We are now not concerned with any offence under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 1955. Admittedly, the first respondent/complainant was 20 years of age even as on the date, she and her husband left the husband’s parental home in 2005. The complaint has been preferred as late as on 11.10.2012. The decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, I (2006) CCR 209 (SC)=1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, informs that proceedings may be quashed:
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we would find not only that the complaint allegations are inherently improbable but they are also tainted by mala fides.
8. This finding finds support from the fact that the domestic incident report filed by the Protection Officer, District Social Welfare Office informs of no offence committed by any one other than husband of the first respondent. In the circumstances, the proceedings in D.V.A. No. 10 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. VII, Coimbatore as against the first and second petitioners are quashed. Criminal original petition is allowed.
9. Learned Counsel for the first respondent informs that till date she has received absolutely no maintenance from the husband/A1. Considering the submission, this Court would direct the Trial Court to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.