GEETA KAPOOR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by petitioner-Smt. Geeta Kapoor (mother-in-law) and Ms. Renu Bhatia (sister-in-law) for quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 120 dated 27.07.2009, titled as Anju Kapoor v. Sanjeev Kapoor and others, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein referred to as 'the D.V. Act') pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagadhari. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that complainant Anju Kapoor-respondent No. 2 has earlier lodged an FIR No. 89 dated 22.03.2007 under Section 498A, 406 IPC at Police Station Farakpur against Sanjiv Kumar (husband), Kuldip Rai (father-in-law), Geeta Kapoor (mother-in-law) and Renu Bhatia (sister-in-law). After investigation petitioner No. 2-Smt. Renu Bhatia was found innocent and was kept in column No. 2 in report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Thereafter an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the complainant for summoning petitioner No. 2 as an additional accused. That application was dismissed vide order dated 13.08.2010 by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagadhari. Complainant Smt. Anju Kapoor (respondent No. 2 herein) challenged the order dated 13.08.2010 in criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar which was also dismissed on 21.04.2011. The learned counsel argued that on the same set of facts, complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic and Violence Act, 2005, does not lie. He further argued that Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes only one year limitation for filing criminal complaint under the D.V. Act, 2005 from the date of the cruelty with a woman. He cites para 24 of Apex Court Judgment Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab, 2011 4 RCR(Cri) 1. The learned counsel pointed out that the alleged act of cruelty as per complaint is dated 19.01.2007, whereas the impugned complaint was filed on 27.07.2009 and submitted that the complaint is beyond one year and not maintainable against petitioner No. 2. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner No. 1-Smt. Geeta Kapoor (mother-in-law) is being prosecuted on the same set of facts under Section 406, 498A IPC. It is double jeopardy. He further argued that petitioner No. 1 Smt. Geeta Kapoor is more than 70 years of age, suffer from old age ailment and has been residing separately from the respondent No. 2 and his son. The counsel argued that complaint under the D.V. Act, against both the petitioners is abuse of process of law and may be quashed.

(2.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 opposed the prayer on the ground that the petitioners have not challenged the summoning order and this petition is not maintainable.

(3.) The case law Inderjit Singh Grewal's case is not applicable to the case in hand. In the cited case there was a decree of divorce between the parties. The relationship came to an end between the parties in the cited case law. The correct view is that in case of decree of divorce, the limitation to file proceedings is only a year. But in this case still the relationship of husband and wife is alive. The object of the D.V. Act, is to provide effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family. So, it is held that in case of subsisting relationship of husband and wife, there is no limitation. Meaning thereby that the complaint under the D.V. Act, can be filed at any time as the physical and mental harassment within the family is a continuing offence.