ROHIT KALIA AND ORS. Vs. SANGITA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of complaint No. 308 of 2015 under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, H.P. and all subsequent proceedings arising thereto.

(2.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent was solemnized according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies on 25.4.2012 at Una. According to the averments contained in the petition, no demand was ever raised for dowry. The petitioner No. 1 alongwith the respondent went to Doha. Respondent came back to India. False allegations were levelled against petitioner No. 1 that he was impotent. The respondent left the matrimonial home on 4.6.2014. A child was born on 28.10.2014 at PGI, Chandigarh. Respondent was discharged from PGI, Chandigarh on 1.11.2014. The petitioner No. 1 filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 bearing No. 182 of 2014 on 4.11.2014. Respondent was proceeded ex -parte. The order was passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Chandigarh on 24.8.2015. Respondent was directed to join the company of petitioner No. 1. Thereafter, respondent filed a complaint No. 308 of 2015 against the petitioners under Section 12 of the Act. The process was issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, H.P. Hence, this petition.

(3.) WHAT emerges from the facts enumerated hereinabove is that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 25.4.2012. However, the relations between them were strained. The petitioners have been harassing the respondent for bringing insufficient dowry. She was not paid any money. Her ATM and PAN Card were also taken by the parents of petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 1 did not look after respondent when she was admitted in the hospital and baby was born on 28.10.2014. A sum of Rs. 15,00,000/ - was spent by the parents of respondent in the marriage and thereafter also, respondent's family gave expensive gifts to the petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 has made false allegations against the respondent qua the parentage of child and has threatened her even to undertake DNA test of the baby. The petitioners were causing physical and mental cruelty to the respondent. The parents of the respondent have also tried to settle the matter amicably but to no avail. It is, in these circumstances, respondent was constrained to file petition under Section 12 of the Act against the petitioners before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the material placed on record, has correctly issued the process against the petitioners in complaint No. 308 of 2015. The issuance of process cannot be termed as misuse of the process of the Court. This Court is satisfied that a prima -facie case for commission of offence is disclosed, as per the averments made in the complaint and the proceedings cannot be stifled or scuttled, at this stage, when the parties have yet to lead their evidence.