ORDER : Heard the arguments of the petitioners’ counsel and also the respondent’s counsel. 2. The petitioners invoking section 482 of Cr.P.C., prayed this Court to quash the proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.15/2014, on the file of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi, vide Annexure-B and to pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent had filed the petition under section 12 and Rule 6(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, D.V. Act), against the petitioners herein alleging that she belongs to Lingayat community and an engagement ceremony was taken place between the 1st petitioner and the respondent on 28.11.2013 in Raghavendra temple at Gadag, in the presence of well wishers and relatives and after the engagement she went and stayed in the house of her sister at Nandini layout, Bengaluru and the 1st petitioner was visiting the house of her sister. It is also sworn to in the affidavit that everyday he was making phone call and enquiring about her and he used to speak over the phone 23 hours and further sworn to in the affidavit that prior to the engagement the 1st petitioner has made a demand of Rs.2,00,000/-as dowry and 5 tolas of golden ornaments and her mother and brother and maternal uncle also agreed for the same and in the month of February 2014, the 1st petitioner came to the house of the respondent and called her to come to Bengaluru and the family members did not agree for the same and however the 1st petitioner insisted her to come to Bengaluru or otherwise he would commit suicide and took her to Bengaluru and introduced her to his friends family and took her to different places in Bengaluru. The family members while sending her to Bengaluru insisted her to stay in the house of her sister and the 1st petitioner told her not to stay in the house of her sister and requested her come to his guest house and the respondent did not agree for the same saying that prior to the marriage it is not good to stay together and hence he quarreled with her. The respondent also made further statement in the affidavit that when she refused to stay with him and again he replied that he just tested her and appreciated her and when she came to Hubballi, the 1st petitioner did not show love and affection on her and reduced his phone calls and started demanding more dowry and golden ornaments and that he demanded Rs.5 lakhs and also 10 tolas of gold ornaments and also motorcycle and their family members expressed it is difficult to arrange for the said amount and further sworn to the affidavit that already marriage invitations were also been printed and distributed and that on 28.03.2014 the 1st petitioner abused her in filthy language and refused to marry her and immediately the family members and well-wishers requested them not to take such a decision. However, the 1st petitioner refused to marry her and as a result the marriage which was scheduled to be held on 04.04.2014 was broken down and due to the said incident it caused disrespect in the society and she is having unmarried sister and the same is also affected her future and the 1st petitioner has committed fraud on her and abused in a filthy language and the petitioner Nos.2 to 8 having instigated the 1st petitioner to get more dowry and they are responsible for the break down of the marriage and hence prayed this Court to grant the compensation as claimed in the petition. Based on the complaint, the Court below issued notice against the petitioners and representing through their counsel and hence the petitioners have approached this Court by filing this petition. 4. The main contention of the petitioners before this Court is that the very initiation of proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.15/2014 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC is contrary to law and the learned Magistrate ought not to have entertained the petition and the learned Magistrate ought to have considered whether there is relationship between the petitioners and the respondent for the alleged offence and without applying his mind, initiated the proceedings against the petitioners which is liable to be quashed. 5. The other contention is that the learned Magistrate ought not to have entertained the petition before submitting the report from the service providers. 5. The other contention is that the learned Magistrate ought not to have entertained the petition before submitting the report from the service providers. In turn the learned Magistrate entertained the petition filed by the respondent and thereafter received report from the protection officer and the same is against the procedure under Section 12 of the Act and hence the whole proceedings is liable to be quashed and there is no believable grounds against the petitioners for the alleged offences since there is no relationship between the respondent and the petitioners and the whole proceedings has to be quashed and there is no violation of domestic violence. 6. The petitioners’ counsel in support of his contention in his argument he contends that the respondent cannot maintain any petition under the Domestic Violence Act and he brought to notice of this Court with regard to definition of Section 2(a) of D.V. Act ‘aggrieved person’ means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent and also brought to my notice the definition of Section 2(f) of D.V. Act ‘domestic relationship’ means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or ‘though relationship in the nature of marriage’, adoption or family members living together as joint family. By referring these two definitions the counsel contends that none of the averments made in the domestic violence complaint and affidavit comply the definition of Section 2(a)-aggrieved person and Section 2(f)-domestic relationship and when such being the case the respondent cannot maintain any petition under the domestic violence act and hence the same has to be quashed. 7. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent/complainant in his argument he contends that the sworn affidavit is clear that an engagement was taken place between them and marriage date was also fixed and in the meanwhile the marriage was broken down and made allegation against the 1st petitioner herein in the complaint and further contends that the petitioner Nos.2 to 8 have also instigated the 1st petitioner in demanding additional dowry and hence the petition is maintainable. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgment reported in 2018 AIAR (Criminal) 772 in the case of Nandakumar and Another Vs. State of Kerala and Others and brought to my notice principles laid down in the judgment with regard to protection of woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Sections 5 and 12 and even if the parties in the case were not competent to enter into wedlock, they have right to live together even outside wedlock; ‘live-in relationship’ is now recognized by the Legislature itself which has found its place under the provisions of the Act, 2005 and hence he contends that the provisions of Section 12 comes to the aid of respondent No.2. 8. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in LAWS (SC)-2010-10-58 between D.Velusamy Vs. D.Patchaiammal and brought to my notice para 10 of the judgment and contend that the expression ‘domestic relationship’ includes not only the relationship of marriage but also a relationship ‘in the nature of marriage’. The question, therefore, arises as to what is the meaning of the expression ‘a relationship in the nature of marriage’. Unfortunately this expression has not been defined in the Act. Since there is no direct decision of this Court on the interpretation of this expression we think it necessary to interpret it because a large number of cases will be coming up before the Courts in our country on this point, and hence an authoritative decision is required and in this judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court discussed with regard to the Parliament by the aforesaid Act has drawn a distinction between the relationship of marriage and a relationship in the nature of marriage, and has provided that in either case the person who enters into either relationship is entitled to the benefit of the Act and enacted the law and contend that it comes within the definition of Section 2(f) of D.V. Act and further he contends that even Section 2(q) of D.V. Act also comes to the aid of the respondent. Section 2(q) of D.V. Act ‘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 and contends that the respondent can maintain petition against the petitioners. Section 2(q) of D.V. Act ‘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 and contends that the respondent can maintain petition against the petitioners. 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. The counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 2014 SC 309 and brought to my notice the head note-(G) protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, particularly, relationship in nature of marriage, live-in-relationship when constitutes relationship in nature of marriage, determination guidelines therefore culled out and brought to notice of this Court with regard to the socialization in public i.e. holding out to the public and socializing with friends, relations and others, as if they are husband and wife is a strong circumstance to hold that the relationship is in the nature of marriage. The counsel also brought to my notice para 35 of the said judgment with regard to Section 2(f) of D.V. Act and also with regard to distinction between the relationship in the nature of marriage and marital relationship, which has been discussed in para 36 of the judgment and contends that this Court has to take note of the principles laid down in the judgment and also the definition of the enactment and prayed this Court to dismiss the petition. 9. Having heard the petitioners’ counsel and the respondent’s counsel, this Court has to examine whether this Court can exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings as sought. 10. 9. Having heard the petitioners’ counsel and the respondent’s counsel, this Court has to examine whether this Court can exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings as sought. 10. Having heard the petitioners’ counsel and the respondent’s counsel, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that an engagement ceremony was taken place between the 1st petitioner and the respondent and a specific date is mentioned i.e. on 28.11.2013 and on perusal of the averments of the complaint an amount of Rs.2 lakhs is sought for the expenses incurred in the preparation of the marriage and also an amount of Rs.70,000/-for the amount spent for engagement and further due to the force of the 1st petitioner, the complainant left the job and the same caused loss of Rs.1 lakh and also claimed an amount of Rs.10 lakhs towards mental harassment meted out to the complainant and so also an allegation is made against the petitioner Nos.2 to 8 that all have to pay an amount of Rs.10 lakhs as they caused insult to her and defamed her name and petitioner Nos.1 to 8 have to pay an amount of Rs.5 lakhs as compensation and in support of this, complaint and a separate affidavit is filed by the respondent. 11. Having taken note of the averments made in the petition as well as in the affidavit, the sum and substance of the allegations is that 1st petitioner after engagement took her to Bengaluru and taken respondent to different places for a period of 15 days and he insisted to stay with him in guest house, but respondent did not agree for the same and he told her not to stay in the house of her sister and respondent refused to stay with him prior to the marriage and hence, differences arisen between them from that point of time, subsequently, he started neglecting her and in spite of that the marriage was fixed and also engagement was done, but the marriage did not take place, hence, present petition is filed. 12. 12. Having considered the definition of Section 2(a) of D.V. Act and also reading of meaning of “Aggrieved Person” and also “Domestic Relationship” and also the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, it is clear that not only the married person can invoke the D.V. Act and the Hon’ble Apex Court in the recent judgment of 2018 held that if they are live in relationship and the same is also recognized by the legislature which is found in place under the provisions of the Act, 2005. On reading of the complaint and also affidavit, it is not clear with regard to they lived together in Bengaluru for a period of 15 days and when they went to different places for a period of 15 days and also it is stated that he took her to friends and family, introduced her and insisted not to stay in the house of her sister. 13. There is no averment in the complaint and also in an affidavit that they lived in Bengaluru in live-in relationship and also the complaint averment is not specific except they were in Bengaluru for 15 days and visited different places, when the same is not clear; insofar as maintaining the petition in respect of 1st petitioner has to be considered only after conducting trial and what had been transpired between them when they were in Bengaluru together while seeing different places, then only after recording the evidence the Court can come to the conclusion with regard to the definition of ‘Domestic Relationship’ and the relationship in the nature of marriage and also with regard to socialization in public and there is no any averment that they lived together in shared house and the Apex Court in the judgment of D. Velusamy Vs. D. Patchaiammal, reported in LAWS (SC) 2010-10-58 in para-10 discussed with regard to expression ‘Domestic Relationship’ includes not only the relationship of marriage but also a relationship ‘in the nature of marriage’ and this has to be ascertained only after recording the evidence of the parties and hence, the question of 1st quashing the proceedings in respect of petitioner does not arise. 14. 14. However, taking into note of the averments made in the complaint as well as the affidavit and in entire affidavit, allegation is made against 1st petitioner that after the engagement he took her as against wishes of their family members and he was talking to her over the phone and thereafter, he introduced her to family, friends and relatives and after the differences, he started neglecting her. Only the allegation made against the petitioner Nos.2 to 8 is, these petitioners are abetted the 1st petitioner in acting against the interest of the respondent and as a result, her family respect is come down and also it affects the career of unmarried sister and also her future. Except making omnibus allegations against petitioner Nos.2 to 8 that they instigated the 1st petitioner to demand more dowry, no other allegation is made and this Court also while considering the material on record has taken note of the averments made in the petition and also the allegations made in the complaint and also in the affidavit. Having considered the averments, it is nothing but general allegations made against the petitioner Nos.2 to 8 and based on omnibus allegation, I do not find any reason to continue the proceedings against the petitioner Nos.2 to 8 and there cannot be proceedings against petitioner Nos.2 to 8 under the D.V. Act, 2005, taking note of the peculiar circumstances of the case that only engagement was taken place and marriage was broken down that too major allegations were made against the 1st petitioner and it is not specific that at the instance of these petitioners, marriage was broken down and the very complaint averments and also the affidavit discloses that the relationship between the 1st petitioner and respondent was not cordial after some days when they were in Bengaluru and only in order to rope the other family members, it appears, names of petitioner Nos.2 to 8 also included in the complaint. Hence, this Court can invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against petitioner Nos.2 to 8 and I have already observed with regard to the 1st petitioner is concerned, it requires enquiry in order to come to the conclusion of the definition of Sections 2(a) and 2(f) and also in keeping Section 2(d) and (q) of the D.V. Act and in the absence of the enquiry and the evidence, this Court cannot give finding which is in dispute and question of fact cannot be decided in this proceedings by invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the proceedings against the 1st petitioner cannot be quashed as sought by the petitioners. 15. In view of the above discussions, I pass the following order: (i) Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The proceedings initiated against the petitioner Nos.2 to 8 is quashed.