Chattisgarh High Court

Shri Nohar Singh Rajput vs Smt. Diksha Thakur on 18 February, 2022

                                      1

                                                                    NAFR
        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                  Judgment reserved on : 08/12/2021
                  Judgment delivered on: 18 /02/2022
                          CRMP No. 60 of 2020
     1. Shri Nohar Singh Rajput S/o Sher Singh Rajput, Aged About 37
        Years, R/o Adarsh Nagar, Kawardha, District Kabirdham
        Chhattisgarh.
     2. Smt. Nidhi Rajput W/o Shri Nohar Singh Rajput, Aged About 34
        Years, R/o Adarsh Nagar, Kawardha, District Kabirdham
        Chhattisgarh.
     3. Smt. Yogita Thakur W/o Shri Sandeep Singh Thakur, Aged About 31
        Years, R/o Kududand, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
     4. Shri Bhupesh Singh Thakur S/o Gajanand Singh Thakur, Aged About
        35 Years, R/o Kanha Homes, Moti Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur
        Chhattisgarh.
                                                           ---- Petitioners
                                  Versus
      Smt. Diksha Thakur W/o Shri Somesh Singh Rajput, Aged About 24
       Years, R/o Village Shanti Nagar, Ward No. 11, Police Chowki, Chikhli,
       Police Station City Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
                                                          ---- Respondent



For Petitioners                   : Mr. A. S. Rajput, Adv.
For Respondent                    : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Adv


                Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J.

C A V Order 18/02/2022

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceeding against

petitioners filed under Section 23(1) of the Protection of Womens

from Domestic Violence Act 2005 in Case No. 19/2019, which is

pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Rajnandgaon.

2. Brief facts of the case are that marriage of respondent Diksha

Thakur and one Somesh Singh Rajput, who is the brother of the

petitioner Nos. 1 & 3 and brother-in-law of petitioner Nos. 2 & 4,

was solemnized on 28.11.2017. The allegation against the

petitioners is that after one month of marriage, they used to harass

the respondent in the name of demand of dowry/household article.

Further allegation against the petitioners is that they are not

supporting her for her higher studies and also not providing

medical treatment to her. In the month of June 2018, Somesh Singh

Rajput left the complainant in her parental house at Rajnandgaon

for medical treatment and thereafter, did not come to take her

back. On 04.07.2019, compromise has been done between the

complainant and her husband and she started residing with her

husband. On 07.08.2019 complainant/respondent written a letter to

Mahila Prakosht, Rajnandgaon and demanded for proceeding under

Domenstice Violence Act against the husband and the present

petitioners. The same was forwarded to the Concerned Officer of

Womens and Child Develpment Officer, Raipur. Thereafter, the

respondent/ complainant filed complaint under Section 23(1) of the

Protection of Womens from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against

the petitioners which is pending before the trail Court. Thus, this

petition for quashing the proceeding pending before the trial Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

registration of case and issuing notice under Section 23(1) of the

Protection of Womens From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to the

petitioners in Case No. 19/2019 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to

law. As the present petitioners are residing separately at different

cities much prior to the marriage of the complainant, therefore, no

case for harassing the complainant for demand of dowry is made

out against them. Without petitioners' sharing a common

household and a domestic relationship with the complaint, their

impleadment as accused is illegal. It is further contended that

because the complainant does not want to live with the parents of

her husband, therefore, she falsely implicated the entire family

members by narrating a false story. So, the proceedings pending

before the trial Court against the petitioners are liable to be

quashed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer of

petitioners and submits that after one month of marriage of the

respondent, husband and his family members started harassing her

in the name of less dowry. Thereafter, the present petitioners, being

close relative of the husband, visited their house and they also

mentally tortured the respondent for bringing less dowry. It is next

contended that due to undue pressure of the husband's family

members, respondent submitted an application for compromise

and on 04.07.2019 (Annexure P/1) compromise has been done

between the parties but, after some time, they again started

torturing her. Though the petitioners are residing separately in the

different cities but whenever they visit respondent's husband house

they torture her. Thus, this petition is baseless and is liable to be

dismissed.

5. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the material

available on record.

6. Section 2(f) of the Protection of Womens From Domestic

Violence Act, 2005, defines the domestic relationship which is

produced hereunder:-

"...2(f) "Domestic relationship" means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or

through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family."

7. Annexure P/1 is the written report of the respondent dated

04.07.2019 in which she stated that:-

Þesjs ifr vkSj llqjky okys fo'okl fnyk, gSa eq>s vPNs ls j[kxs vkSj eq>s

fdlh izdkj dh rdyhQ ugha gksu nsxsa vkSj eSa blh ckr ls larq "V gksdj eSa

le>kSrk dj eSa vkus moa llqjky okyska ds lkFk vkt fnukad 04-07-2019 dks

vkus llqjky tk jgha gWw eSa Hkh fo'okl fnykrh gWaw fd ifr lkl llqj lc ds

lkFk eku lEeku d#Wxh gekjk le>kSrk gks x;k gSA eS a vius vkosn u ij

dksb Z dk;Z o kgh ugha pkgrh] vkosn u tkaW P k can djuk pkgrh gw aA ß

8. After some time, respondent again filed an application

(Annexure P/2) on 07.08.2019 to the Officer In-charge, Mahila

Prakoshth, Rajnandgaon in which she stated that:-

iwoZ esa fnukad 04-07-2019 dks le>kSrk djds ifr lkses'k flag Bkdqj ,oa

muds iwjs ifjokj okys ds lkHk llqjky xbZ Fkh esjs ifr esjs ls ckr ugha djrs

Fks vkSj lkFk #e esa jgrs Fks esjs gkFk [kkuk Hkh ughs [kkrs Fks vkSj eq>s ifRu dh

vf/kdkj ugha fn,A 04-08-2019 dks efgyk izdks "B jktuanxkao ykus ds fy,

cgkuk dj fn,A esjs dks dke okyh tSls cuk dj j[ks Fks blfy, eS vius ifr

ds lkFk ugha tkuk pkgrh gwW esjh lkl fnu Hkj viuh csfV;ksa ds lkFk ckr

djrh blds ckn oks Hkh ckr ugha djrh FkhA ngst vkSj ?kjsyw fgalk ds rgr

eSa dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djuk pkgrh gWwA vkS j vxj esj s ifr lkse s' k flag lkFk

jguk pkgrs rks os ;g esj s lkFk jgs rks eS jgus ds fy, rS ; kj gwW A

9. On 22.08.2019, she filed application under Section 23(1) of

Protection of Womens from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and in this

petition she added petitioners with husband, mother-in-law and

father-in-law as respondents. In case-diary, in Annexure P/4 address

of the present petitioners is mentioned as under:-

4- Jh uksgj flag jktiwr vk- 'ksjflax jktiwr

5- Jherh fuf/k jktiwr /k-i- Jh uksgj flag jktiwr

6- Jherh ;ksfxrk Bkdqj /k-i- lanhi flag Bkdqj

7- Jh Hkwis'k flag Bkdqj vkRet xtkuan flag Bkdqj

dafMdk dza- 4&5 fuoklh& vkn'kZ uxj] ftyk do/kkZ

dafMdk dza- 6 fuoklh &xzke xksaMhrjkbZ] Fkkuk o rglhy lktk ftyk

csesrjk

dafMdk dza- 7 fuoklh& dkUgk gksEl] eksrhuxj] jk;iqj ¼NRrhlx<½

And in the present petition, address of the petitioners is mentioned

as under:-

             Petitioner                                   Address
Shri Nohar Singh Rajput                   Adarsh Nagar, Kawardha, District
                                          Kabirdham (C.G.)
Smt. Nidh Rajput                          Adarsh Nagar, Kawardha, District
                                          Kabirdham (C.G.)
Smt. Yogita Thakur                        Kududand,     Bilaspur,      District-
                                          Bilaspur (C.G.)
Shri Bhupesh Singh Thakur                 Kanha Homes, Moti Nagar,
                                          Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

While the respondent/complainant resides at Village Shanti Nagar,

Ward No. 11, Police Chowki, Chikhli, P.S. City Kotwali, District

Rajnandgaon which is far from the house of the petitioners.

10. The Supreme Court in the case of S.R. Batra & Anr. Vs.

Smt. Taruna Batra in (2006) 13 SCALE 652 has interpreted the

definition of shared household for the purpose of Section 17(1) of

the Act, 2005, wherein it is stated that as per Section 17(1) of the

Act, 2005 wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a

shared household, and a shared household would only mean that

house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house

which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a

member.

11. It is clear from above citation as well as from the Act that

petitioner are not residing with the respondent, therefore, they are

not covered under the definition as per Section 2 & 23 (1) of