1. In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioners have sought for quashing the proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short the Act') in Crl.Misc.No. 1390/10 on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
2. There is no dispute that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the first petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on 29.4.2007. On account of certain matrimonial differences, the respondent herein initiated petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriages Act, 1955 in M.C.No. 837/09 on the file of the Family Court at Bangalore. In the said petition, the first petitioner appeared and filed his objection wherein he appears to have conceded to the prayer made by the respondent herein. However, when the said mattes was still pending, the respondent herein filed petition under Section 12 of the Act against the petitioners herein. The second petitioner is the father-in law of the respondent while petitioner No.3 is the maternal grand father of the first petitioner. In the petition filed under Section 12 of the Act, the respondent has made several allegations of domestic violence perpetrated on her by the petitioners herein. The learned Magistrate before whom the petition came to be presented directed registration of the case and also ordered issue of notice to the petitioners herein. Upon service of notice, petitioners have appeared before the learned Magistrate and have filed objections to the petition. The case is now at the stage of enquiry. In the meanwhile, the respondent also appears to have filed applications seeking reliefs as contemplated under Section 17 to 20 of the Act.
3. The grounds under which the petitioners are seeking to quash the proceedings are, that the allegations made in the petition are all false and have been made only to harass the petitioners; that the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 have no relationship whatsoever with respect to the allegations made in the petition since they resided about 350 kms away from the matrimonial home of the respondent while she was residing with the first petitioner in Chennai, therefore, the allegations made in the petition with regard to the alleged domestic violence are all concocted only to make a ground for seeking the reliefs with the first petitioner; that on account of harassment meted out to the first petitioner by the respondent, he was forced to resign from his job as such he is now without any job and is residing with his parents at. Tirchi; though the petitioner conceded the relief of the restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent in the Family Court. respondent deliberately has been avoiding the proceeding before the Family Court and has rushed to the Criminal court with a petition under Section 12 of the Act. Under these circumstances, the proceedings initiated by the respondent before the criminal court under Section 12 of the Act is liable to be quashed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the records produced.
5. At this stage, there is allegation and counter allegation by the parties. The respondent herein has asserted certain facts in her petition filed before the trial Court under Section 12 of the Act. The petitioners herein who are respondents before the learned Magistrate have denied those allegations. In the light of the allegations and counter allegations by the parties, the trial Court is required to hold enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Merely on the basis of the assertions made by the petitioners in this petition which are in the nature of objections filed by them for the petition before the trial Court, this Court cannot quash the proceedings initiated before the trial Court. The objections filed by the petitioners herein before the trial Court are required to be enquired into and an appropriate order is required to be passed The learned Magistrate has set the ease for enquiry. Therefore, this court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings, it is open to the petitioners to urge all these conventions before the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate orders before the learned Magistrate. In this view of the matter. I find no merit in this petition. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.