MEHKAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") has been preferred seeking quashing of application under Section 12 of the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short "the Act") titled "Smt. Garima Sumran vs. Anshuman Kaler and others" (Annexure P -3) pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra and proceedings emanating therefrom.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioners contends that Garima Sumran, respondent No. 2 was married with Anshuman Kler son of the petitioners on 21.1.2006. The respondent gave birth to a female child on 12.6.2007 at Muzaffarnagar i.e. in the house of the petitioners. The petitioners always treated the respondent as their daughter but they in their old age are being harassed due to litigation initiated by the respondent who earlier registered a false and frivolous FIR No. 423 dated 17.8.2007 for offence under Sections 498 -A, 406, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") in police Station City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra against all the family members of the husband. It is argued that the respondent left the matrimonial home in the year 2007 and lodged proceedings under Section 12 of the Act in the year 2012 with an intent to wreak vengeance and cause harassment to the petitioners and others. Respondent No. 2 is working as a teacher and has sufficient means to maintain herself and the minor child. It is further argued that as the respondent is in employment at Kurukshetra, there is no question of her residing in the alleged shared household in Muzaffarnagar and this fact alone is sufficient to show that the proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 12 of the Act are nothing but abuse and misuse of process of law thus, liable to be quashed.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent, on the contrary, argues that petition under Section 482 of the Code seeking quashing of an application under Section 12 of the Act is not maintainable as these are not criminal proceedings but civil in nature. Any order passed under the Act can be challenged by way of appeal under Section 29 of the Act before the Court of Sessions. The petitioners, without waiting for the decision by the Court concerned have hurriedly filed the instant petition to stifle proceedings before the trial Court and right of respondent to reside in the shared household. I have heard counsel or the parties and perused the case file. Chapter IV of the Act provides for obtaining orders/reliefs. Section 12 under Chapter IV of the Act deals with application to Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the Act, that is to say: