Kiran Kriplani vs Jethanand Jethwani
2012 Latest Caselaw 3888 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+          CRL.M.C. NO.2536/2011

                                    Date of Decision: 04.07.2012
KIRAN KRIPLANI              ...... Petitioner
             Through: Mr. Ashok Kriplani, Adv.
                   Versus
JETHANAND JETHWANI             ......     Respondent
             Through: Mr. A.K. Mishra, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., assailing the

order dated 23.4.2011 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge.

2. By the impugned order, the petitioner had assailed the

validity of the order dated 21.12.2010 passed by the learned

Magistrate, rejecting the application of the petitioner under

Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as Act).

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the record.

4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is

the married sister of the respondent, a resident of Kota,

Rajasthan. The late father of the parties left an unregistered

Will dated 24.1.1992, making both the parties beneficiaries.

The petitioner claims that she was coerced to enter into a

Settlement on 12.1.2002. She further alleges that she has

been subjected to mental, emotional and economic agony by

the respondent by not giving her share in their Kota Property

as per the Will. A civil suit in this regard has also been filed in

Delhi Courts.

3. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the respondent,

alleging domestic violence when she was living along with her

brother in the same property at Kota, Rajasthan. It was

stated by her that the property, where she was living before

her marriage, was owned by their father, which was

bequeathed by virtue of their father's Will dated 24.1.1992 in

favour of her brother and herself, however, the brother of the

petitioner had obtained the signatures of the petitioner for

settlement of the property by coercion. It has, therefore, been

suggested since the petitioner, before her marriage, was

living in a 'shared accommodation' and was having a

'domestic relationship', therefore, the respondent be

prosecuted for having committed domestic violence. The

learned Magistrate had rejected the contention of the

petitioner that she was having a 'domestic relationship' or that

the parties were living in a 'shared accommodation' by

referring to the judgment of Harbans Lal Malik -vs- Payal

Malik, 171(2010) DLT 67 and Vijay Verma -vs- State (NCT of

Delhi), MANU/DE/1946/2010 and dismissed the petition. It

was observed by the learned Trial Court that neither there

was shared accommodation nor was there any domestic

relationship between the petitioner and her brother, as she

had got married in the year 1993 and was living in Delhi along

with her husband.

4. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal

provided under the Act.

5. The Appellate Court had passed a detailed order, upholding

the viewpoint of the learned Trial Court that neither was there

any 'domestic relationship' nor was there any 'shared

accommodation' where the petitioner and the respondent

were living.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the finding

of the learned Trial Court by alleging that there is a domestic

relationship between the petitioner and the respondent as well

as they were living in a shared accommodation. For this

purpose, he has relied upon the following judgments:-

1. Vaddeboyina Tulasamma and ors. -vs- Vaddeboyina Sesha Reddi (dead) by LRs, AIR 1977 SC 1944

2. Savita Bhanot -vs- Lt. Col. V.D. Bhanot, 2010(2) JCC 965

3. Kusum Lata Sharma -vs- State & Anr., 181(2011) DLT 775

7. I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for

the petitioner. The judgments, which have been referred to by

him, are in the context of relationship of husband and wife

and their matrimonial disputes. In the instant case, the

petitioner had admittedly got married in the year 1993 and

has been living in Delhi. The Act came into existence in the

year 2005. It has also been admitted by the petitioner that

there is a civil litigation going on between herself and the

respondent, who happens to be her real brother, claiming a

share in the property left by their late father.

8. In these circumstances, I feel that the filing of the complaint

by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act against her

brother is only to compel him to settle the property dispute

with her. Therefore, the petitioner is misusing the provisions

of law with some extraneous consideration. This cannot be

permitted to be done. It is a gross abuse of the processes of

law. Apart from this, there is a concurrent finding of fact

which cannot be upset by the High Court only because it is a

Superior Court. Neither I find there is any abuse of the

processes of law in the impugned order, nor any order, in the

interest of justice, is warranted to be passed.

9. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

04 July, 2012 tp