Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 761 (BOM)

Devanand Baliram Wankhade v. State of Maharashtra

2015-03-18

A.B.CHAUDHARI, P.N.DESHMUKH

body2015
JUDGMENT A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. Following is the relevant prayer in the present Application:-- "(b) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 270 of 2010 dated 25.11.2010 filed before Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati u/Ss. 12, 16, 17, 18,19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 qua the present Applicants and for that purpose issue necessary orders;" Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 is absent. 2. Learned Counsel for Applicant Nos. 1 to 3 submitted that the Applicant Nos. 1 to 3 have no direct relationship with the complainant, but she has direct relations with her husband and in-laws in the matter of a grievance which she has made in Misc. Criminal Case No. 270 of 2010. He then took us through the entire complaint and pointed out that in para 1, what is mentioned against the applicants is that the applicants are described as Non-applicant Nos. 7, 8 and 10 in the complaint. What is stated in para 1 about the present applicants [non-applicant Nos. 7, 8 and 10] is that they are related to the husband of the respondent No. 2-complainant. It is then pointed out by learned APP for the State that in addition, there is an averment in general in the complaint against all non-applicant Nos. 1 to 10 about giving mental and physical harassment and nothing more. We have ourselves perused the entire complaint. From perusal of para 1 itself, we find that the present applicants are not as such related in such a manner that the provisions of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, could be invoked against them, prima facie in the first place. Even otherwise, we find that in para 1, only relationship of the applicants is mentioned and thereafter at page 37, a general statement against all the Non-applicant Nos. 1 to 10 is made about alleged mental or physical harassment and nothing more. In our opinion, in so far as the provisions of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, are concerned, the respondent No. 2 - Jyoti might have a grievance against her husband and in-laws. 1 to 10 is made about alleged mental or physical harassment and nothing more. In our opinion, in so far as the provisions of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, are concerned, the respondent No. 2 - Jyoti might have a grievance against her husband and in-laws. But to pull the other relatives, i.e., applicants, from some other places, namely Akot and Daryapur, in the litigation by filing a private complaint under the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is, in our opinion, an abuse of process of Court. At any rate, as stated by us earlier, there are no specific allegations at all against the applicants so as to attract the ingredients of the provisions of Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, though there may be such averments in the complaint in so far as other non-applicants in the complaint are concerned. Thus, looked from the point of view even of the complaint itself and at its face value, we are convinced that the complaint against the applicants is required to be quashed and set aside by exercising power under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. In that view of the matter, we make the following order:-- ORDER "[a] Criminal Application [APL] No. 157 of 2012 is allowed. [b] Rule is made absolute in terms of Prayer Clause [b]. [c] No order as to costs." Application Allowed.