Karnataka High Court Manisha W/O Ganasham Keshwani And … vs Deepa @ Bhavana W/O Rajesh … on 10 March, 2014Author: Rathnakala

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA GULBARGA BENCH

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014 BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA CRL.PETITION No.16011/2013

BETWEEN

1. MANISHA W/O GANASHAM KESHWANI AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: C/O: 140/14, NEAR BHAJI MARKET, GANDHI NAGAR, KOLAPUR-416119, MAHARASHTRA.

2. BEGARAJ @ BEGUMAL,

S/O: GHANSHAMDAS TALREJA

AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: C/O: 38, ANTRATOLI NAGAR-I, OPP.SARTHIK SUPER MARKET,

SOLAPUR-413003.

3. MOHINI

BEGARAJ @ BAGUMAL TALREJA,

AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: C/O: # 38, ANTRATOLI NAGAR-I, OPP.SARTHIK SUPER MARKET,

SOLAPUR-413003.

4. DILIP

BEGARAJ @ BAGUMAL TALREJA,

AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, PRESENTLY R/O: C/O: # 38,

ANTRATOLI NAGAR-I,

OPP.SARTHIK SUPER MARKET,

SOLAPUR-413003.

2

5. MURLI

BEGARAJ @ BAGUMAL TALREJA,

AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, PRESENTLY R/O: C/O: # 38,

ANTRATOLI NAGAR-I,

OPP.SARTHIK SUPER MARKET,

SOLAPUR-413003.

6. ROHIT

BEGARAJ @ BAGUMAL TALREJA,

AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, PRESENTLY R/O: C/O: # 38,

ANTRATOLI NAGAR-I,

OPP.SARTHIK SUPER MARKET,

SOLAPUR-413003.

7. KISHORE S/O GIRIDHARIMAL GOPALANI AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: C/O: BREAK NO.10, ROOM NO.5, GANDHI NAGAR, KOLAPUR-416119, MAHARASHTRA.

8. MANJU

W/O: KISHORE @ NANDAKISHORE GOPALANI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: C/O: BREAK NO.10, ROOM NO.5, GANDHI NAGAR, KOLAPUR-416119, MAHARASHTRA.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI K.A.KALBURGI, ADVOCATE) AND:

DEEPA @ BHAVANA

W/O RAJESH KESHWANI,

AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: ALAND, TQ: ALAND,

DIST: GULBARGA.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI ASHOK.S.KINAGI, ADVOCATE) 3

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER FOR TAKING COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AND QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN DVC NO.843/2013, WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE JMFC ALAND. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard both counsels.

2. The fact is one Deepa @ Bhavana W/o Rajesh Keshwani filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short the Act) 2005 against 8 respondents. Out of them the eighth respondent is her co-sister i.e., husband’s brother’s wife. The remaining respondents 1 to 7 are the members of the maternal home/family of respondent No.8. The complainant is the resident of Aland and respondent No.8- Manisha is the resident of Kolapur. The allegation in the complaint is that there is family dispute between the Manisha (first petitioner herein) and her husband: all the petitioners herein out of suspension are creating problem to the complainant: six months back they trespassed into her 4

house, quarreled with her and abused her in filthy language and attempted to forcibly carry her. They are daily putting phone calls to her and abusing her in filthy language …etc.

3. Admittedly, the petitioners are not the members of the complainant at least they are not residing in the town where she is residing. It is the submission of Sri K.A.Kalburgi, that there is dispute between the first petitioner and her husband-Ghansham Keshwani and in this regard on her complaint Crime No.52/2012 for the offences under Section 506, 498A, 504, 143, 147, 149, 323 of IPC is registered by Aland police against Ghansham Keshawani and his family members. She has filed another complaint under the Act in Crl. Misc. No.609/2013 before the JMFC, Kolapur, against her husband and in-laws. To counter blast her complaint her co-sister complainant- Deepa has filed this complaint. C.C.No.437/2013 before the JMFC Kolapur for the offences under Sections 498A, 5

420, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC is pending on her complaint. In the said case the complainant Deepa is arrayed as Accused No.7. To counter blast the above cases the husband and in-laws of Deepa stage managed to file the present case against the petitioners.

4. Be that as it may, it is clear that the petitioners are not at all the family members of the complainant. They do not share common roof with her. It is obvious that the relationship between the first petitioner herein and her husband and in-laws is sufficiently strained. Whatever be the truthfulness of the allegations made in the criminal cases initiated at the instance of Manisha/the first petitioner herein, fact remains that the complaint allegations of this case by any stretch imagination do not make out a case under Section 12 of the Act. The complainant does not fall under the definition clause “aggrieved person” as contemplated in Section 2 (a) of the Act and the petitioners herein do not constitute “domestic 6

relationship” with the complainant as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act. It is only a luxury to allow such proceedings to continue. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in DVC No.843/2013 on the file of JMFC, Aland, is quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sdu