HEMANT BHAGAT Vs. PREKSHI SOOD BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CR-3407-2024 is being taken as lead case. Shorn of details, brief facts that need to be noticed are that, complaint was filed under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for brevity, referred to as 'the Act of 2005') by respondent-wife against maternal uncle and aunt of her husband seeking protection order under Sec. 18, residence order under Sec. 19 and compensation order under Sec. 22 of the Act of 2005. Surprisingly, husband was not arraigned as a party in the complaint. Petitioners approached this Court seeking quashing of the complaint claiming that the same has been filed by respondent-wife in collusion with her husband and is a counter-blast to the complaint filed by petitioners No.l and 3 against husband of the complainant. The complaint is thus an abuse of process of law.

(2.) Instant revision petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It was claimed by counsel for the petitioners that petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of complaint filed under Sec. 12 of the Act of 2005, have been held to be not maintainable by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M No.19553 of 2023 titled as Jaspal Kaur @ Pinki and another vs. State of Punjab and another. Petitioners having no alternate remedy have been constrained to approach this court invoking jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned Single Bench of this Court in Jaspal Kaur @ Piriki's case (supra) has relied upon ratio of law laid down by Full Bench of Madras High Court in Arul Daniel and others vs. Suganya, 2022 SCC Online Mad 5435.

(3.) At the stage of preliminary hearing, Single Bench expressed dissent with the view taken in Jaspal Kaur @ Pinki's case (supra) and referred the following questions to Larger Bench for adjudication:-