Domestic violence case quashed bombay high court

APPLICANTS:          1.  Vikrant Sudhakar Ambhore,
aged  32 years, Occu: Service.
2.  Sudhakar Tanajirao Ambhore,
aged 55 years, Occu: Service.
3. Rekha Sudhakar Ambhore,
age 48 years, Occu: Housewife.
4. Pratiksha Sudhakar Ambhore,
age 25 years, Occu: Education,
All resident of 7/28/4 KTPS Colony,
Koradi, Tq. and Distt.Nagpur.

NON­APPLICANT:  Varsha Vikrant Ambhore,
age 28 years, Occu: Household,
C/o Hariindu Selote, Near Mahadev,
Temple Babupeth, Chandrapur, Tq. and

Mr. W.G.Paunikar, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. Rajnish Vyas, Advocate for the non­applicant.
Z. A. HAQ, JJ.
DATED:     19th NOVEMBER, 2013.
::: Downloaded on – 22/11/2013 10:45:40 :::
Bombay High Court
APL527.13.odt      2
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Rule.  Rule is made returnable forthwith.
3. The applicants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court
under   Section   482   of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure   praying   for
quashing   of   the   complaint   filed   by   the   non­applicant   under   the
provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
4. With   the   assistance   of   the   learned   Advocates   for   the
applicants and non­applicant, we have gone through the complaint filed
by the non­applicant before the Magistrate.   There are no averements
in the complaint which make out any offence against the applicant nos.
2, 3 and 4.   The only allegation against the applicant nos.2, 3 and 4 is
that a demand was made by them and pursuant to the demand, the
::: Downloaded on – 22/11/2013 10:45:40 :::
Bombay High Court
APL527.13.odt      3
parents   of   the   non­applicant   have   given   the   items   as   stated   in
paragraph no.2 of the complaint.
5. Shri   Vyas,   learned   Advocate   for   the   non­applicant,   has
submitted  that  the allegations made  in paragraph  no.3  against  the
applicants constitute domestic violence as contemplated by Section
3(b) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
However, we find that the non­applicant has not even pleaded that
there   was   harassment   or   harm   or   injuries   or   anything   which
endangered her to coerce her to fulfill  the demand, which are the
necessary ingredients.
6. Shri Vyas, the learned Advocate for the non­applicant has
further submitted that in paragraph no.3 of the complaint it is stated
that   the   applicant   nos.2,   3   and   4   had   been   co­operating   with   the
applicant   no.1   for   harassing   the   non­applicant.     We   find   that   the
allegations made against applicant nos.2, 3 and 4 are vague and do
::: Downloaded on – 22/11/2013 10:45:40 :::
Bombay High Court
APL527.13.odt      4
not constitute domestic violence as contemplated by the provisions of
the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.  The averements prima facie, even if
taken at its face value, do not constitute the offence.
7. In view of the above, we find that the continuation of the
complaint as filed by the non­applicant against applicant nos.2, 3 and 4
is abuse of the process of law and therefore, the complaint as filed
against the applicant nos.2, 3 and 4 has to be quashed.   As far as the
complaint against applicant no.1 is concerned, we find that there are
prima facie allegations and material in the complaint.   Hence, it cannot
be quashed in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. In view of the above, the application is partly allowed.  The
complaint filed against the applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4 under Section 12
of   the   Protection   of   Women   from   Domestic   Violence   Act,   2005   is
::: Downloaded on – 22/11/2013 10:45:40 :::
Bombay High Court
APL527.13.odt      5
quashed.     The complaint as against the applicant no.1 to continue
before the learned Magistrate.    In the circumstances, parties to bear
their own costs.
::: Downloaded on – 22/11/2013 10:45:40 :::