VIJAY KUMAR MALHOTRA AND ANOTHER Vs. POONAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the RBT Act Complaint Case No.103/12, DV Act No.75 dated 06.12.2012 titled as "Poonam vs. Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra and others" under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2015 (for short 'the DV Act') pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur as well as summoning order dated 03.04.2014 and the subsequent proceedings.

(2.) In nutshell, a marriage was solemnized between the respondentcomplainant and petitioners' son namely Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra on 04.03.2010 at Hoshiarpur, Punjab, which was a second marriage of both of them. After some time of the marriage, the respondent-complainant and the petitioners' son started living separately in a rented accommodation from the petitioners and have also taken away all the dowry articles/good related to them. It is submitted that while leaving the house of the petitioners, both the respondent-complainant and the petitioners' son sworn a joint affidavit before the Executive Magistrate, Ludhiana, Punjab on 07.09.2011 to this effect. However, the matrimonial life of the respondent-complainant and the petitioners' son could not survive the test of time, which resulted in filing the complaints under the DV Act as well as under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is mentioned that petitioner No.1 has also disowned the complainant and his son on 15.09.2011 by way of a newspaper publication.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners argues that a perusal of the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant under the DV Act, would not make out any offence against the petitioner herein. It is submitted that no specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioners herein with regard to any act of harassment or cruelty at any point of time. Rather, in the complaint, there is no mention of date of marriage, date of desertion or of any domestic incidence, if any occurred against the respondent-complainant, apart from filing the said complaint without an affidavit in support thereof. It is contended that the joint affidavit sworn by both the respondent-complainant as well as petitioners' son before the Executive Magistrate, Ludhiana, clearly mentioned that they have no concern with the petitioners in any manner and have also taken away all the dowry articles/goods belonging to them. It is argued that the trial court has issued the impugned summoning order, without considering any domestic incident report or without considering that whether any domestic relationship subsist or not between the parties. In support of his arguments, learned counsel relies upon judgments rendered in Rashmi Jain vs. State of U.P. and another, 2014 1 Scale 415, Jaswinder Kaur and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014 1 Crimes(HC) 442 and Rama Singh vs. Maya Singh and others, 2013 1 RCR(Cri) 846.