SACHIN DOGRA Vs. ANJU BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of the application filed by respondent No.1 (aggrieved person) under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the aggrieved person filed an application under Sec. 12 of the DV Act against the original respondent (present petitioner). It was asserted that the marriage between the aggrieved person and the respondent was solemnised on 20/11/2013 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. They cohabited as husband and wife, but no child was born to them. The respondent treated the aggrieved person properly for a few days; however, the respondent No.1, at the instance of other respondents, started maltreating, giving beatings and demanding dowry from the aggrieved person. Respondents No.1 and 2 had demanded Rs.5.00 lacs from the father of the aggrieved person, which was provided by him by raising a loan. The aggrieved person told the respondents that her father was a poor person and was unable to arrange further loans. Respondent No.1 demanded Rs.1,50,000.00 from the father of the aggrieved person in January 2014, who satisfied the demand. The respondents spent Rs.1,50,000.00 and started demanding more money from the father of the aggrieved person. When he could not meet their demands, they maltreated, abused and beat the complainant. Respondent No. 1 had demanded Rs.50,000.00 from the father of the aggrieved person in February 2015, which was paid by him to respondent No.1. Again, a demand of Rs.5.00 lacs was made in September, 2015. The aggrieved person expressed her inability to meet the demand. The father of the aggrieved person took her to Delhi on 17/6/2016 to reconcile the matter, but nobody responded to the bell of their house. After some time, respondent No.6 came out and said that there was no one in the house and asked the aggrieved person and her father to return. Hence, an application was filed against the respondents for taking action as per the law.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the filing of the application, respondent No.1 has approached this Court for quashing the complaint and the consequential proceedings. It is asserted that the application has been filed without any domestic violence to harass respondent No.1, who has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The present petition is a counterblast of the petition filed by respondent No.1. No Domestic Incident Report was filed, and the evidence of the aggrieved person was already closed. The aggrieved person examined herself and her father. There are material contradictions in the statements of the aggrieved person and her father. The aggrieved person had filed an application for deleting her name from Gram Panchayat Morsu Sultani, and learned SDM passed an order on 15/11/2014. She filed the application mentioning her address as a resident of Tehsil Churah, wherein the aggrieved person is described as unmarried. The Court had no jurisdiction at Chamba, and only the Courts at Hamirpur have the jurisdiction. No specific incident of domestic violence was mentioned with particulars of date and time. No police complaint was made to any person. No evidence was produced to prove the domestic violence. The aggrieved person sought the services of Senior Counsel at Chamba, but thereafter, she applied for legal aid. The complaint was filed against respondent No.1 and other persons, but the learned Trial Court dropped the proceedings against other persons. The aggrieved person and her father threatened the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Learned Trial Court had granted the last opportunity; however, the evidence was not closed. The affidavit was filed, and no opportunity was given to the learned counsel to seek instructions. Respondent No.1 was directed to leave the Court, which deprived him of an opportunity to seek instructions from his counsel. Learned counsel was not permitted to ask many relevant questions. The complaint has been pending for more than five years. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court be quashed.