SRI. A.RAMESH BABU [ PETITIONERS ]  Vs. SMT. DHARANI  [RESPONDENT]

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3578 OF 2022

(THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA)

Facts: The petitioners who are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the respondent are before this Court calling in question proceedings initiated by the respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous No.570 of 2021 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District invoking Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘the Act’ for short)

Issue: Whether the sessions court can quash proceedings under section 12 of DV Act?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for petitioners:

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the petitioners have nothing to do with the life of the husband and the wife. They are without any rhyme and reason driven into these proceedings. Though no order is passed, it is their submission that as to why the petitioners 2 and 3 who are now senior citizens should undergo the misery of appearing before the Court when they have not performed any overt act that would attract violence. It is his submission that the wife has various grievances against the husband. The proceedings should have stopped at that and not dragging every member of the family.

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:

Per-contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would project a threshold bar. It is his submission that the criminal petition is not maintainable. As appeal should be preferred as obtaining under Section 29 of the Act and that would be a statutory, efficacious and alternative remedy. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court is, on the face of it, erroneous is the submission of the learned counsel. He would submit, without prejudice to his contentions qua maintainability of the petition, that the 3rd petitioner has no role to play, but petitioners 1 and 2 being father-in-law and mother-in-law, have undoubtedly a role to play in what the husband has behaved with his wife. Therefore, the proceedings must be permitted to continue. He would seek dismissal of the petition.

Held: The court allowed the present petition and held that, “A petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. calling in question the entire proceedings before the concerned 46 Court initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 would be maintainable, only if the proceedings are challenged on the ground of abuse of the process of the law, as the Court of Session is not empowered to obliterate the proceedings holding it to be an abuse of the process of the law. Any specific order passed by the concerned Court answering applications filed under Sections 18, 19, 20 or 22 of the Act or any other interlocutory order would not be entertainable before this Court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The aggrieved, by any order, has to prefer an appeal under Section 29 of the Act, as it is an alternative and statutory remedy available.”