NOHAR SINGH RAJPUT Vs. DIKSHA THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceeding against petitioners filed under Section 23(1) of the Protection of Womens from Domestic Violence Act 2005 in Case No. 19/2019, which is pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that marriage of respondent Diksha Thakur and one Somesh Singh Rajput, who is the brother of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 and brother-in-law of petitioner Nos. 2 and 4, was solemnized on 28.11.2017. The allegation against the petitioners is that after one month of marriage, they used to harass the respondent in the name of demand of dowry/household article. Further allegation against the petitioners is that they are not supporting her for her higher studies and also not providing medical treatment to her. In the month of June 2018, Somesh Singh Rajput left the complainant in her parental house at Rajnandgaon for medical treatment and thereafter, did not come to take her back. On 04.07.2019, compromise has been done between the complainant and her husband and she started residing with her husband. On 07.08.2019 complainant/respondent written a letter to Mahila Prakosht, Rajnandgaon and demanded for proceeding under Domenstice Violence Act against the husband and the present petitioners. The same was forwarded to the Concerned Officer of Womens and Child Develpment Officer, Raipur. Thereafter, the respondent/ complainant filed complaint under Section 23(1) of the Protection of Womens from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the petitioners which is pending before the trail Court. Thus, this petition for quashing the proceeding pending before the trial Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the registration of case and issuing notice under Section 23(1) of the Protection of Womens From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to the petitioners in Case No. 19/2019 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. As the present petitioners are residing separately at different cities much prior to the marriage of the complainant, therefore, no case for harassing the complainant for demand of dowry is made out against them. Without petitioners' sharing a common household and a domestic relationship with the complaint, their impleadment as accused is illegal. It is further contended that because the complainant does not want to live with the parents of her husband, therefore, she falsely implicated the entire family members by narrating a false story. So, the proceedings pending before the trial Court against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.