LAWS(P&H)-2019-4-146

HARMANJOT SINGH Vs. AMARJIT KAUR

Decided On April 08, 2019
Harmanjot Singh Appellant
V/S
AMARJIT KAUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-Harmanjot Singh @ Harmandeep Singh has filed the present petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint No.25 dtd. 19/7/2016 (Annexure P-1) filed by respondent-Amarjit Kaur under Ss. 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for brevity "the Act") pending before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Moga.

(2.) Challenge has also been laid down to the order dtd. 19/7/2016 (Annexure P-2), whereby the petitioner has been summoned along with other co-accused to face the trial in the case. Challenge is also to the order dtd. 10/12/2018 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Moga, whereby two applications i.e. one application to decide the maintainability of the complaint and the other application for reconsideration of the order of maintenance were decided by the trial Court. Learned trial Court has held that the complaint filed by the respondents is maintainable and the husband is liable to make maintenance.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is son of Gurdeep Singh's sister. Gurdeep Singh is real maternal uncle (Mama) of the petitioner. The respondent was married with Gurdeep Singh on 12/4/2015 according to sikh rites and rituals. At the time when the complaint was filed by the respondent, the petitioner was minor. But still he has falsely been implicated so as to harass the family and to put pressure. There is no allegation of violence against the present petitioner. The complaint filed by the respondent under the Act was not maintainable, but without adhering to the settled provisions of the Act, petitioner has been summoned to face trial in a mechanical manner. The order of summoning has been passed without appreciating the allegations. He refers to Sec. 2(q) of the Act to contend that the complaint was not maintainable against the minor. On the relevant date when the complaint was filed, the petitioner was minor as he was 16 years of age.