DV case on 12 people including a tenant whose name the woman does NOT know!!!  S.C., DV Quash

In this beautiful case, a woman files domestic violence complaint on 20 people, including a tenant whose name she does not know…!!!.. The case is accepted by the lower courts, and the High Court refuses to quash the case against unconnected people… The unfortunate accused have to go to the Supreme Court to get the case partly quashed. It is also to be noted that the lower courts  askes the accused to take bail even though  the complaints are from a domestic violence case. In all it takes approximately six years for the accused to get justice !!!


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.)NO.8522 OF 2010)
ASHISH DIXIT & ORS. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.

  1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.07.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.8358 of 2008. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has refused to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners by the respondent no.2-wife, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for brevity “the Act, 2005”).
  2. In the petition filed by respondent no.2, apart from arraying her husband and her parents-in-law as parties to the proceedings, has included all and sundry, as respondents. To say the least, she has even alleged certain actions said to have been done by the tenant whose name is not even known to her.

  3. In a matter of this nature, we are of the opinion that the High Court at least should have directed that the petition filed by respondent no.2 be confined to her husband as also her parents-in-law and should not have allowed the impleadment of respondent nos.4 to 12.

  4. In view of the above, while allowing this appeal in part, we quash the proceedings as against appellant nos. 4 to 12 in Case No.240 of 2007. We direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra to proceed with the aforesaid case; only against the husband i.e. Shri Ashish Dixit, S/o. Padmakar Dutt Sharma, her father in law, Shri Padmakar Dutt Sharma, S/o.late Pt.Diwakar Dutt Sharma and Smt.Girja Dixit, W/o.Shri Padmakar Dutt Sharma, her mother in law.

  5. We are of the opinion that the direction issued by the High Court, inter-alia, directing the appellants herein to appear before the Trial Court and seek bail is wholly unnecessary.

…………………..J.

(H.L. DATTU) …………………..J.

(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD) NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 07, 2013.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s