IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM not M-2370 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision :
22. 01.2013 Sunil Kumar and another ...Petitioners Versus Smt.
Parkash Rani ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.S.S.Salar, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Mr.Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, for the respondent.
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
(Oral) The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing of criminal complaint No.137 of 24.10.2011, titled as 'Parkash Rani versus Sunil Kapoor', under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Ludhiana.
The sole argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the ingredients of the “Domestic Violence”.
are not made out as there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioneRs.at any stage, shared accommodation with the respondent.
He cites S.R.Batra versus Smt.
Taruna Batra, 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 403.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent states that the respondent is the step-mother of the petitioner No.1.
The marriage in question was solemnized with the father of petitioner No.1.
He has inherited the property of her late husband, which is in the shape of two houses, out of which, one house has been sold by the petitioneRs.He cites Vijay Verma versus State NCT of Delhi and another, 2010(7) RCR (Criminal) 1145; and K.
Narasimhan versus Rohini Devanathan, 2010(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 72.
Heard.
The respondent has no issue.
The petitioners are under obligation to maintain the respondent.
The estate of the respondent has devolved upon petitioner No.1.
The cited case law are distinguishable on facts.
In the present case, complex question of fact with regard to whether the parties ever shared accommodation is involved, therefore, no case for quashing the complaint is made out, at this stage.
Dismissed.
22.01.2013 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE