SATISH SHARMA Vs. STATE AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SATISH Sharma, the Petitioner herein vide the instant petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is seeking following prayer:

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the Petitioner is husband of Late maternal aunt of Gaurav Sharma. Respondent No. 2 Shipali Sharma was married to Gaurav Sharma on 29.04.2005. The marriage between them was not a success, which led to filing of a divorce petition by Gaurav Sharma. When Respondent No. 2 was served with the notice of divorce petition, she filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005(for short "the Act") against Gaurav Sharma and five others, including the Petitioner. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, on consideration of the complaint under the Act found prima facie case against four out of six Respondents named in the complaint and issued process for appearance against them. Petitioner is one of those named accused persons.

(3.) LEARNED Sh. S.C. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has submitted that the complaint against the Petitioner as also the summoning order dated 31st May, 2008 qua him are liable to be set aside for the reason that the learned Trial Court has totally ignored the definition of domestic relationship as given in Section 2(f) of the Act and failed to appreciate that the Petitioner does not even fall within the definition of the Respondent as given in Section 2(q) of the Act. Learned Counsel submitted that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the Petitioner is only a distant relative of husband of the Respondent No. 2, being the husband of late sister of mother -in -law of the Respondent No. 2, as such, in all probabilities, he is not expected to get involved in the domestic issues of matrimonial family of the Respondent No. 2. Learned Counsel further argued that the Trial Court, while appreciating the complaint and preliminary evidence, has totally ignored that the allegations against the Petitioner are highly vague and they relate to the year 2005 and 2006 whereas the complaint has been filed much later in May, 2008 as a counterblast to the divorce petition filed by Gaurav Sharma, husband of the Respondent No. 2. Learned Counsel contended that the petition under Section 12 of the Act filed by the Respondent No. 2 is an abuse of process of law and is nothing but an attempt to rope in entire family of her husband with a view to pressurize them. Thus, he has urged for quashing of complaint as well as the summoning order dated 31st May, 2008 qua the Petitioner.