RUKMANI & ORS Vs. MANONMANI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal original petition has been filed by the petitioners / Respondents 1 to 6 and 9 seeking to quash the proceedings in M.C.No.10 of 2012, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Tindivanam, filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter, referred to as "the Act") by the first respondent / complainant.

(2.) On 21.12.2001, the first petitioner / first respondent entered into a sale agreement with the first respondent / complainant. The second petitioner / second respondent is the son of the first petitioner / first respondent. The third petitioner / third respondent is the mediator, who had negotiated the deal between the first petitioner / first respondent and the first respondent / complainant. However, later, the subject property had been sold by the first petitioner / first respondent to the fourth petitioner / fourth respondent through the power agent, namely, the fifth petitioner / fifth respondent. The sixth petitioner / sixth respondent is a person, who is alleged to have committed interference in respect of the property and the seventh petitioner / ninth respondent is a person, who had induced violence against the first respondent / complainant. Though the son and the husband of the first respondent / complainant were also impleaded as respondents 7 and 8 in the complaint, later, they have filed their counter supporting the case of the first respondent and praying to treat them as approvers and rebutting the relief sought for.

(3.) The brief facts remain that on 21.12.2001, the first petitioner entered into a sale agreement with the first respondent. The third respondent in this petition, who is shown as eighth respondent in the complaint in M.C.No.10 of 2012 before the Magistrate Court. Since the petitioners had failed to abide by the terms of the sale agreement, the third respondent being the husband of the first respondent, who has been shown as eighth respondent in M.C.No.10 of 2012, had filed a suit for specific performance. While so, in the year 2012, the first respondent had filed M.C.No.10 of 2012 praying for the following reliefs: Under Section 18 of the Act: