Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 29 (UTT)

Kanti Devi v. State of Uttarakhand

2014-02-12

U.C.DHYANI

body2014
ORDER 1. The applicants, by means of present application petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. seek to quash set aside summons dated 06.01.2011, issued against the applicants, by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar, in Criminal Case No. 161 of 2011, Smt. Priti Sharma vs. Kanti Devi and Another, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 2. Complainant (respondent No. 2 herein) filed a criminal complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as the Act) against her mother-in-law and brother-in-law in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar, Garhwal. Applicants were asked to appear before the said court. Feeling aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. was filed by the applicants. 3. Complainant-respondent No. 2 was married to Vijay Sharma (since deceased) on 13.01.2009, according to Hindu rites and rituals. Vijay Sharma died on 26.09.2009. The mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the complainant-respondent No. 2 started castigating her for premature death of her husband. She was ousted from her matrimonial home. Her stree-dhan was withheld. Complainant-respondent No. 2 served a notice, through her counsel, upon her mother-in-law and brother-in-law, who continued to threaten her with dire consequences. Complainant-respondent No. 2 has no means for her livelihood. She, therefore, prayed for certain reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Act. 4. Applicant No. 1 is the mother-in-law of complainant-respondent No. 2. Learned counsel for applicant No. 1 drew attention of this Court towards Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which reads as under: 2(q) respondent means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act : Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner. 5. The mother-in-law of respondent No. 2, therefore, could not be arrayed as respondent in the complaint in view of Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 5. The mother-in-law of respondent No. 2, therefore, could not be arrayed as respondent in the complaint in view of Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. This view finds support from various pronouncements of Hon'ble Courts in Dhupender Singh Mehra vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2011 (1) Crimes 520 (Del.); Tehmina Qureshi vs. Shazia Qureshi, (2010) 2 MPLJ 127 : AIR 2010 NOC 541 (MP) and Smt. Menakuru Renuka and Others vs. Smt. Menakuru Mohan Reddy and Another, (2009) 3 Crimes 473 : AIR 2009 AP 1544. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants further contended that brother-in-law (applicant No. 2) was part of different household of the complainant-respondent No. 2 and her deceased husband. Instead of seeking remedy for different reliefs, the complainant-respondent No. 2 should have taken recourse to other alternative forum. It is also contended by learned counsel for the applicants that complainant-respondent No. 2 was married to Vijay Sharma (since deceased) at Dhampur (U.P.) and not in Uttarakhand and, therefore, learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of such matter. It is further contended that property of the late husband of complainant-respondent No. 2 is also situated at Dhampur, District Bijnore (U.P.) and not in Kotdwar (Uttarakhand). 7. This Court is unable to subscribe to such contention of learned counsel for the applicants, inasmuch as the victim is living at Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, territorial jurisdiction of which lies with Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar. Said Magistrate has jurisdiction to deal with the matter even if the property of late husband of respondent No. 2 is situated in Dhampur, District Bijnore (U.P.). 8. A perusal of Section 27 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 reads as under: 27. Jurisdiction. (1) The court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within the local limits of which :- (a) The person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed. (b) The respondent resides or carries on business or is employed. (c) The cause of action has arisen, shall be the competent court to grant a protection order and other orders under this Act and to try offences under this Act. (2) Any order made under this Act shall be enforceable throughout India. 9. (b) The respondent resides or carries on business or is employed. (c) The cause of action has arisen, shall be the competent court to grant a protection order and other orders under this Act and to try offences under this Act. (2) Any order made under this Act shall be enforceable throughout India. 9. It, therefore, does not lie in the mouth of applicants to say that the court at Kotdwar has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 12 of the Act. 10. Further, a perusal of Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Act will also make it clear that such reliefs, as were sought by the complainant-respondent No. 2, can be sought for against the applicants. It is not necessary that those reliefs could be sought only against the husband. In other words, such reliefs can be sought against any respondent (applicant No. 2 herein), a description of which is given in Section 2(q) of the Act. Whether the complainant-respondent is entitled to such reliefs or not, can best be adjudicated by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar, who is seized with the matter. 11. It is settled law that the factual controversy need not be gone into by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P.C., as has been held in catena of decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence this Court finds that it is not a fit case for interference insofar as the proceedings against applicant No. 2 are concerned. 12. As a consequence thereof, application under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. filed on behalf of applicant No. 1 Smt. Kanti Devi (mother-in-law of respondent No. 2) is allowed. Summons dated 06.01.2011, issued against applicant No. 1, by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar, in Case No. 161 of 2011, Smt. Priti Sharma vs. Kanti Devi and another, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is hereby set aside. 13. Application under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. filed by applicant No. 2 Ajay Sharma (brother-in-law of respondent No. 2) is dismissed. 14. Liberty is granted to applicant No. 2 to take all such factual pleas before learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar, as were taken by him before this Court. Order accordingly.