Manoj Garg and others vs Sonika Gupta and others

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of complaint bearing filing No.466/2016 dated 17.5.2016 and registration No.33/2016 filed

under Section 12 read with Section 18 to 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and

consequent proceedings arising therefrom has been filed by petitioners Manoj Garg, his mother Santosh and father Jagdish Rai.

Inter alia in the petition, it is contended that they are aggrieved with initiation of proceedings under the Act at the behest of respondent No.1 Sonika

Gupta wife of petitioner No.1 Manoj Garg, who had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act. According to the petitioners, the marriage between

petitioner No.1 Manoj Garg and respondent No.1 Sonika Gupta took place at Ambala and thereafter the spouses started residing together in the

matrimonial home at Khanori Mandi, Tehsil Moonak; that the parents of petitioner No.1 had been residing with them and petitioner No.1 has been

running a small shop at that place; the spouses were blessed with a minor daughter Hitashi, presently aged about 3 years; that respondent No.1 was

not interested to reside with petitioner No.1 and she openly proclaimed that petitioner No.1 was not of her liking; her attitude towards petitioner No.1

was non-co-operative and arrogant; she even used to leave matrimonial home without the consent of her husband and his parents; though she used to

go by saying that she was going to her parental house at Ambala but in fact she used to go with one Akshay Kumar Goyal, arrayed as respondent

No.3 in the petition. According to the petitioners, the respondent No.1 had developed illicit relations with respondent No.3 and she finally eloped with

him on 30.10.2015 taking minor daughter of petitioner No.1 and such respondent No.1 with her in Skoda Car bearing No.HR26-6336 owned by

respondent No.3; that petitioner No.1 had lodged a DDR with the Police Station Khanori immediately mentioning therein that respondent No.1 had

taken away gold ornaments, cash etc.; the record of Toll Plaza shows that respondent No.1 had gone with respondent No.3 in the Skoda Car; the

respondent No.1 along with her daughter were recovered from Khanori, where the matter was got compromised between the parties and it was

decided by the Panchayat that respondent No.1 should be permitted to reside with respondent No.3 and petitioner No.1 would get divorce from such

respondent; the statements of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 and respondent No.3 were recorded; that respondent No.1 had specifically agreed

to get divorce from petitioner No.1 and the spouses had filed a petition in the Court under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act; that respondent No.1

had agreed that she would not claim any maintenance of for the past, present and future from the petitioners and would have no concern or

connection with petitioner No.1; that she had executed an affidavit in that regard; that after filing of the petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage

Act, statements of both the petitioners were recorded, however, when the case was adjourned to 13.5.2016 for recording statements of both the

petitioners on second motion, respondent No.1 backed out and refused to give her consent for divorce, therefore, the petition in question was dismissed

on 13.5.2016; thereafter, respondents No.1 and 2 have filed the complaint in question before Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amloh and notice had

been given to the petitioners to put in appearance there.

The petitioners pray that the complaint along with ancillary proceedings be quashed.

Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents but there is no representation on their behalf.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and I find merit in the petition.

The allegations levelled in the petition are that complainant Sonika Gupta had eloped with Akshay Kumar Goyal and in terms of the Panchayati

decision, it was decided that in future, she along with her daughter would reside with Akshay Kumar Goyal, after getting divorce from Manoj Kumar.

The statement of Sonika Gupta Annexure P3 is to that effect so is her affidavit dated 6.11.2015 Annexure P4. It further transpires that Sonika Gupta

and Manoj Kumar had filed a petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act for seeking divorce by mutual consent, which is dated 6.11.2015.

Their statements were also recorded on first motion on that very day. There are no allegations with regard to the domestic violence in the petition

under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act or in the statement recorded on the first motion, now levelled in the complaint under the Act. Rather it is

mentioned that Sonika Gupta had received her entire belongings, though in her statement recorded on 13.5.2016, she took a different stand stating that

her dowry articles are in possession of Manoj Garg, which had not been given to her. The photographs placed on record by the petitioners also bely

the contention of the complainant that she had been maltreated and harassed by her husband. The petitioners have placed on file copy of judgment and

decree dated 5.4.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide which petition under Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act filed by

petitioner Manoj Kumar against his wife Sonika Gupta and Akshay Kumar Goyal was allowed ex parte and allegations of cruelty perpetrated by

Sonika Gupta upon her husband Manoj Kumar and that of adultery for the reason of Sonika Gupta residing with respondent 3 Akshay Kumar Goyal

were found to be proved. Therefore, the complaint in question is clearly an abuse of process of law.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to authority Amit Agarwal and others Versus Sanjay Aggarwal and others, 2016(3) Law Herald

(Punjab and Haryana) 2279 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, wherein it was observed that a complaint under Domestic Violence Act can be

quashed, if it is found that the complaint was an abuse of the process of the Court or has been filed only with a view to harass the other side.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the abovesaid complaint bearing filing No.466/2016 dated 17.5.2016 and registration No.33/2016 filed under

the Act alongwith ancillary proceedings is hereby quashed.