Delhi High Court
Vijay Laxmi & Anr. vs Madhu Joshi & Ors. on 6 September, 2018
$~8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 6th September, 2018
+ CRL. M.C. 4352/2015 & Crl.M.A. 15396/2015, 6114/2016
VIJAY LAXMI & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashish Azad, Adv.
Versus
MADHU JOSHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajiv Raheja, Adv. for R-1
& 2.
Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the
State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioners are before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate
as second and third respondents in the case (CC No. 1321/1/2012)
instituted by the first and second respondents herein invoking the
provision contained in Section 12 of Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In addition, Lalit Mohan Joshi,
husband of the first respondent, he being the father of the second
respondent and son of the first petitioner, was also shown in the array,
allegations having been made against him, and the petitioners, of they
having indulged in certain acts of commission and omission, the same
constituting "domestic violence", prayers having been made with
reference to remedies available under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20 and 22
of the said law. Lalit Mohan Joshi, the husband of the first respondent
died on 03.01.2015 during the pendency of the said case which is
continued to be prosecuted against the petitioners.
2. The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) to seek quashing of
the above said proceedings on the grounds, inter alia, that they are
senior citizens, the allegations against them in the case are small and
bald, no case of domestic violence having been properly brought out,
the intention being to cause harassment and to gain wrongful
possession of their property. Reference is made to continued
occupation of certain portion of the residential property of the first
petitioner by the respondents, it being indicated that the petitioners
intend to bring a civil suit for recovery of possession, mesne profits
and injunction. It was clarified at the hearing that such a suit has since
been filed.
3. To say the least, the petition is wholly misconceived. The
questions of fact cannot ordinarily and, in absence of evidence of
unimpeachable character to the contrary, be properly inquired into or
adjudicated upon in the jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C. [see Rajiv
Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330]
4. The fact that Lalit Mohan Joshi, the husband of the first
respondent has died cannot result in the criminal proceedings coming
to an end. After all, allegations have been made also against the
petitioners who are related to the respondents by marriage or birth.
The claim of the respondents in the said case, inter alia, for
compensation for the injuries suffered as a result of the alleged acts of
domestic violence act cannot be brushed aside. The same would need
to be inquired into and adjudicated upon in accordance with law.
5. The petition and the applications are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 06, 2018
nk
