Smt.Ujwala W/O Chandrashekar ... vs Smt.Veena W/O Parashuram Sanake
2022 Latest Caselaw 2883 Kant

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
               DHARWAD BENCH

   DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                    BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA


              CRL.P NO 101675 OF 2019

BETWEEN

1 . SMT.UJWALA
W/O CHANDRASHEKAR TERADAL
AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: NEAR BYE PASS ROAD,
YALLAMMAGUDDA ROAD,
SAUNDATTI
TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.



2 . SRI.CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O NARAYAN TERADAL
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: GOVT.SERVANT (POLICE DEPARTMENT),
R/O: NEAR BYE PASS ROAD,
YALLAMMAGUDDA ROAD,
SAUNDATTI
TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
                                     ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.SRINAND A PACHHAPURE, ADV.,)


AND
                                  2




     1 . SMT.VEENA
     W/O PARASHURAM SANAKE
     AGE: 20 YEARS,
     OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
     R/O: PATTADAKALL ONI,
     SAUNDATTI,
     TQ: SAUNDATTI,
     DIST: BELAGAVI.



     2 . KUMARI SUDHEEKSHA
     D/O PARASHURAM SANAKE
     AGE: 1 YEARS 7 MONTHS,
     SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
     HER NATURAL MOTHER MINOR GUARDIAN
     RESPONDENT NO.1.
                                                   ...RESPONDENTS


     (NOTICE TO R1 SERVED;

           R2 MINOR R/BY R1)


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING    TO     QUASH    THE       ENTIRE   PROCEEDINGS     IN
CRL.MISC.NO.150/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL
JUDGE & JMFC COURT, SAUNDATTI REGISTERED U/S 12 OF
PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005,
ORDER     SHEET   MARKED    AT       ANNEXURE-A,    INSOFAR   AS
PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.


     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                  3




                             ORDER

1. Petitioners are before this Court calling in question

the proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.150/2019 pending before the

Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Saundatti registered under Section

12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic violence Act,

2005 (for short the D.V. Act).

2. Heard Sri.Srinand A Pachhapure, learned counsel for

petitioners and respondents remains un-represented.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition

as born out from the pleadings are as follows:

The complainant-respondent No.1 is the wife of one

Parshuram Sanake. Marriage between the 1st respondent

and accused No.1 took place on 25/11/2016. It transpires

that relationship between the accused No.1-husband and

the complainant-wife turned sore on account of certain

alleged harassment meted out by the husband on the

complainant-wife. Based upon the said incident, invoking

provisions of the D.V.Act, complainant registers the

complaint on 12/6/2019. The petitioners are accused Nos.

5 and 6 in the said case, in relation to the complainant, the

petitioners are sister-in-law and the her husband. It is not

in dispute that couple were residing at Pune along with

other members of the family and the petitioners in the case

at hand are residing at Saudatti. The complaint insofar as it

relates to the accused No.1 is as follows:

"5. It is respectfully submits that in the house

of Respondent No.1, there Respondent treated

the petitioner No.1 as labour not as their family

member. Their ill treatment was caused great

humiliation to the petitioner No.1. The father

of Respondent No.6 has mediated at the

time of marriage with due pressure of

Narayan Teradal and Respondent No.5 and

6 the mother of petitioner No.1 was agreed

for the marriage of petitioner No.1 with

Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.5

and 6 are residing at Saundatti but due to

ill treated the petitioner No.1 and not gave

visit to see the petitioner no.2 . After delivery

instead of not coming to see the petitioner no.2

and take the petitioners to in laws house the

Respondent No.1 has sent legal notices twice to

the petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.1 and her

mother Sangeeta Betgeri went to the house of

Respondent No.5 and 6 gave the legal notice

which are with them, the first notice dis with

petitioner no.1. Looking in to the helplessness of

a widow mother of petitioner No.1 the

Respondents are playing tricks with the

petitioner no.1 with an intention to make 2nd to

the respondent No.1 marriage as per their family

intention because the petitioner no.1 not given

dowry and gold as per their wish."

4. The only allegation against the petitioners is that they

have instigated the husband or other members of the family

to ill-treat respondent No.1-wife, beyond this there is no

other allegation that is made against the petitioners much

less any overtact.

5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners do not reside

with the couple or family members. They are residing at

Saudatti and couple live at Pune. Therefore, if the

proceedings are permitted to continue against the petitioners,

it would degenerate into harassment and without doubt

would become an abuse of process of law. The view of mine

in this regard is fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court

in the case of SHAFIYA KHAN VS. STATE OF UTTAR

PRADESH reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 167, in the light of

the facts obtaining in the case at hand and the judgment of

the Apex Court afore-quoted, the petition deserves to

succeed.

6. For the aforesaid reasons the following:

ORDER

i) The criminal petition is allowed.

ii) The proceedings against the petitioners in

Crl.Misc.No.150/2019 pending before the Prl. Civil

Judge and JMFC, Saundatti stands quashed.

SD JUDGE Vb/-