{"id":524,"date":"2009-08-07T22:12:43","date_gmt":"2009-08-07T16:42:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/?p=524"},"modified":"2009-08-07T22:12:43","modified_gmt":"2009-08-07T16:42:43","slug":"1-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/1-2009\/","title":{"rendered":"Employment Details and DV"},"content":{"rendered":"

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT<\/strong><\/p>\n

DATED: 28\/04\/2009<\/p>\n

CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH<\/p>\n

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11066 of 2008 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009<\/p>\n

1.K.Kamala
\n2.K.Pasungili
\n3.C.Vasantharaja
\n\t\t\t\t\t… Petitioners
\nVs.<\/p>\n

1.M.Parimala
\n2.The District Social Welfare Office cum
\n The District Dowry Prohibition Officer, Dindigul.
\n\t\t\t\t\t… Respondents<\/p>\n

PRAYER<\/p>\n

Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
\npraying to call for the records relating to the impugned order in C.C.No.465 of
\n2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, and to quash the same.<\/p>\n

For Petitioners … Mr.Veera Kathiravan
\nFor Respondents … Mr.R.R.Kannan for R1
\n\t\t Mr.L.Murugan for R2
\n\t\t Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)<\/p>\n

:ORDER
\n\tThis petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the
\ncognizance order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, in
\nC.C.No.465 of 2008 as illegal and abuse of process of law and misuse of
\nprovisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after called as ‘Act’).<\/p>\n

\t2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
\n\tThe first petitioner is the mother-in-law, the second petitioner is the
\nsister-in-law and the third petitioner is the husband of the sister-in-law of
\nthe first respondent. The first respondent preferred a complaint against the
\npetitioners under the said Act. The allegation against the first
\npetitioner\/mother-in-law is that she wrote a letter to the Secretary, L.I.C.
\nEmployees Association, Dindigul, where the first respondent is working and a
\nsecond letter to the Public Relation Officer, Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-IV,
\nCommercial Tax Office, Dindigul, where the first respondent’s husband is
\nworking, with some allegations against the petitioner, under the guise of
\nseeking for certain informations. The only allegation as against the
\npetitioners 2 and 3 is that the 2nd petitioner\/sister-in-law had written
\ncomplaint where the first petitioner\/mother-in-law had put her signature.
\nFurther, on 09.05.2008 the petitioners 2 and 3 were attacked the first
\nrespondent and based on which, a complaint has been given and based on the
\ncomplaint a case has been registered in 128 of 2008 which is pending on the file
\nof the Police. Further, the first respondent claimed compensation of Rs.10
\nlakhs under the Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate concerned has also taken
\ncognizance of the same, as if the complainant is entitled for compensation. The
\noffence said to have committed by the petitioners are under Sections 18, 20,
\n21, 22 and 23 of the Act. Based on the complaint, the 2nd respondent has
\nforwarded it to the trial court for prosecution and a criminal case was
\nregistered in C.C.No.465 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
\nNo.II, Dindigul and they were arrayed as respondents\/accused. The learned
\nJudicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul has taken cognizance and issued summons in
\nthe said complaint. Challenging the same, the petitioners have come forward
\nwith the present Criminal Original Petition for the relief as stated supra.<\/p>\n

\t3. Heard Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
\nand Mr.R.R.Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and
\nMr.L.Murugan, learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the second
\nrespondent.<\/p>\n

\t4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument
\nthat the petition given by the first respondent against the petitioners herein,
\nwho are the mother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband of the sister-in-law of the
\nfirst respondent, was without any verification to be submitted by the protection
\nOfficer before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul and the same was
\ntaken cognizance and summons were issued in contravention of the provisions of
\nthe Act and therefore, the order of cognizance passed by the learned Judicial
\nMagistrate No.II, Dindigul, in C.C.No.465 of 2008 has to be quashed.<\/p>\n

\t5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit in his
\nargument that the first respondent’s husband was not included as respondent and
\ntherefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners are liable to be proceeded
\nunder the provisions of the said Act. The said inclusion of female members, as
\nthe relatives of the husband, as respondents, is not sustainable under Section
\n2(q) of the Act. He would further submit that the allegations said to have been
\nmade against the petitioners in Form-I under the Act, are not adequate, to take
\ncognizance and on the face of it, the offence against the petitioners pertaining
\nto the 3 days’ cause of action viz., 26.04.2008, 30.04.2008 and 09.05.2008 are
\nnot sustainable and admittedly, on 09.05.2008, a complaint has been already
\nlodged before the Police, North Police Station, Dindgul Town, Dindigul, and the
\nPolice have also given the receipt in C.S.R.No.128 of 2008. Now, the very same
\ncause of action, has been repeated here and it would amount to ‘double jeopardy’
\nagainst the petitioners.<\/p>\n

\t6. The learned counsel would further submit that the allegations as
\nagainst the 2nd and 3rd petitioners in the said complaint would be that they
\nhelped the first petitioner to write the petition against the first respondent
\non 26.04.2008 and another petition against the husband of the first respondent
\non 30.04.2008 to their respective offices. He would state that no material has
\nbeen produced for the purpose of incriminating the 2nd and 3rd petitioners and
\nmerely because they are living with the first petitioner, it cannot be said that
\nthey have instigated the first petitioner to write so. Moreover, he would also
\nsubmit that the dispute between the first petitioner and her son namely, the
\nhusband of the first respondent and another younger son, in respect of the
\nproperty, bequeathed by her husband in her favour for enjoying the property till
\nher lifetime and the vested remainder to the sons. The first petitioner is in
\npossession of the said property, situated in Salem, in pursuance of her life
\ninterest, the first respondent wanted her to get out of the property and
\nimmediately she caused disturbances by harassing the first petitioner by giving
\nthis complaint. He would further submit that the allegations in the letter
\ndated 26.04.2008, written by the first petitioner to the Secretary, L.I.C.
\nEmployees Association might not have been disclosed to the first respondent for
\nwarranting a cause of action. For this, an enquiry has to be conducted by the
\nL.I.C. Employees Association, where the first respondent is working and
\ntherefore, there could not be any mental stress or domestic violence as told by
\nthe first respondent in the petition.<\/p>\n

\t7. He would further submit that the letter dated 30.04.2008 written by the
\nfirst petitioner seeking for information about the particulars of the employment
\nof her son from his employer, and her son was not in any way prejudiced by the
\nfirst petitioner and absolutely there was no cause of action for the aggrieved
\nperson. If any stress is emanating out of the letter dated 30.04.2008, it would
\nbe the first petitioner’s son and the second cause of action is also not
\nsustainable both in law and on facts. Without following of the legal
\nformalities, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, has taken the
\ncomplaint on file, which has to be quashed.<\/p>\n

\t8. The learned counsel for the first respondent would submit in his
\nargument that after taking cognizance of the complaint, about 39 hearings have
\npassed and the petitioners have appeared for 5 hearings only and now, they have
\ncome forward with this case at the belated stage only. He would further submit
\nthat the petitioners are certainly attracted under the definition of ‘domestic
\nrelationship’ as per Section 2(f) of the said Act and the first respondent is
\nentitled to give such a complaint against the petitioners, who are defined as
\n‘respondents’, as per Section 2(q) of the said Act and this petition has been
\nfiled only for prolonging the case so as to defeat the provisions of Section
\n12(5) of the Act, regarding the disposal of the case made under Sub-Section (1)
\nwithin a period of 60 days from the date of taking cognizance. Therefore, he
\nrequests the Court to dismiss the petition as not sustainable.<\/p>\n

\t9. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would reiterate the
\nargument of the first respondent and he would also submit that the Protection
\nOfficer has promptly filed the application in time and it has been taken
\ncognizance and there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Judicial
\nMagistrate No.II, Dindigul in taking cognizance of the case and therefore, the
\npetition may be dismissed.<\/p>\n

\t10. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side.<\/p>\n

\t11. The foremost contention of the petitioners would be that the
\nimplication of the petitioners, as respondents in C.C.No.465 of 2008 on the file
\nof the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, cannot be sustained as
\nfemale relatives of the husband are not attracted under the definition of the
\nrespondents under Section 2(q) of the said Act. For the better understanding the
\nmeaning of the term ‘respondent’, we have to extract the said provision itself.
\nSection 2(q) runs as follows:
\n“(q)”respondent” means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic
\nrelationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has
\nsought any relief under this Act:
\n\tProvided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the
\nnature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband
\nor the male partner;”<\/p>\n

\t12. According to the main part of the said Section, the respondent in any
\ncase means any adult male person who must be in a domestic relationship with the
\naggrieved person. However, the proviso to Section 2(q) of the said Act, would
\ngo to show that an aggrieved wife or a female partner may also file a complaint
\nagainst a relative of husband or male partner. Whether the term ‘a relative’
\nwill spread its ambit to attract the petitioners, who are the female relatives
\nof the husband, is a question to be decided. No doubt, the first petitioner is
\nthe mother and the second petitioner is the sister and the 3rd petitioner is the
\nbother-in-law of the husband of the first respondent. Therefore, a relative in
\na ‘domestic relationship’, shall be the ‘respondent’ in a case. The definition
\nof domestic relationship under Section 2(f) runs as follows:
\n“(f)”domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or
\nhave, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are
\nrelated by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of
\nmarriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;”<\/p>\n

\t13. According to the said Section, two persons should live at any point of
\ntime together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity,
\nmarriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or as
\nmembers of the joint family. This domestic relationship qualification is given
\nto a relative member of her husband, to be impleaded as ‘respondent’. According
\nto the petitioners they are not attracted by the said provisions.The insistence
\nof the learned counsel for the petitioners would be that when the term
\n‘respondent’ is defined with a qualification as to be an adult male person in
\nthe Section, the reference “a relative” should also be a male relative of the
\nhusband or male partner and therefore, the case against the 1st and 2nd
\npetitioners, who are the female members, cannot be sustained. For the purpose of
\ndetermining as to whether a female relative of the husband cannot be a
\nrespondent in view of the mentioning of any adult male person in the Section,
\nand therefore it would also apply to the proviso of 2(q), we have to
\nnecessarily to apply our mind to find the intention of the legislation, from the
\nStatement of Objects and Reasons for enactment of this Act. In the sub Section
\n(i) of the 4th paragraph of the Statement of Objects and Reasons, it has been
\ncategorically mentioned as follows:
\n“4.The Bill, Inter alia, seeks to provide for the following:
\n(i) It covers those women who are or have been in a relationship with the abuser
\nwhere both parties have lived together in a shared household and are related by
\nconsanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage or
\nadoption. In addition, relationships with family members living together as a
\njoint family are also included. Even those women who are sisters, widows,
\nmothers, single women, or living with the abuser are entitled to legal
\nprotection under the proposed legislation. However, whereas the Bill enables
\nthe wife or the female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage to
\nfile a complaint under the proposed enactment against any relative of the
\nhusband or the male partner, it does not enable any female relative of the
\nhusband or the make partner to file a complaint against the wife or the female
\npartner.”<\/p>\n

\t14. The objects and reasons would categorically show that the aggrieved
\nwife or female partner can file a complaint against any relative of the husband
\nor male partner. Thus it helps us to understand the word ‘a relative’ mentioned
\nin the proviso to section 2(q), could be construed as any relative. Will the
\nwords any relative include both female and male relatives? is an important
\nquestion to be decided at this juncture. According to ‘Concise Oxford English
\nDictionary – Eleventh Edition’, “any” means, to refer to one or some of a thing
\nor number of things, and it does not matter how much or how many. As regards,
\nthe meaning of ‘any’, it does not restrict to a singular and a particular
\ncategory, it applies to all categories or classes of persons. In this
\nbackground, when we approach the object and reasons, it has been categorically
\nmentioned that the bill was prepared to enable the wife or the female partner
\nliving in a relationship in the nature of marriage to file a complaint under the
\nproposed enactment against any relative of the husband or the male partner, even
\nthough, it does not enable any female relative of the husband or of the male
\npartner to file a complaint against the wife or the female partner. Therefore,
\nthe Act has been enacted to protect the wife or the female partner, who is
\nliving with her husband or a male partner in a relationship in the nature of
\nmarriage from the harassment or violence emanated from any of the relative of
\nher husband or male partner living in a relationship in the nature of marriage,
\nincluding the adult female persons of the family. The benefits and protection
\ngiven under this Act is not available to other female members of the family.
\nTherefore, the meaning given in the proviso of Section 2(q) would be against any
\nrelative of the husband or male partner which includes, the petitioners 1&2
\nbeing the adult female persons as per the allegations made by the first
\nrespondent.<\/p>\n

\t15. As regards, the maintainability of the allegations, we have to see the
\ningredients of the complaint made by the first respondent against the
\npetitioners as ‘respondents’ in the said case which is pending before the court
\nbelow. The allegations against the 2nd and 3rd petitioners would be that they
\nhelped the first petitioner to write and send a petition to the Secretary,
\nL.I.C. Employees Association, where the first respondent is working and to the
\nPublic Relation Officer, Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-IV, Commercial Tax
\nOffice, Dindigul, where the first respondent’s husband is working. Except the
\nsaid allegations, nothing was mentioned against the petitioners in respect of
\ncause of action dated 26.04.2008 and 30.04.2008.<\/p>\n

\t16. On 26.04.2008, the first petitioner was stated to have written a
\ncomplaint to the Secretary, L.I.C.Employees Association, Dindigul Branch I, 45,
\nNew Agraharam, Palani Road, Dindigul. Similarly, on 30.04.2008, the first
\npetitioner is said to have sent a letter seeking for information under the Right
\nto Information Act, to the Public Relation Officer, Deputy Commercial Tax
\nOfficer-IV, Dindigul. These letters were signed by the first petitioner only.
\nEither the letters were neither signed nor attested by the second and third
\npetitioners or nothing is available to show that both the letters were prepared
\nby the 2nd and 3rd petitioners.<\/p>\n

\t17. In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that there is a
\nprima facie case against the petitioners 2 and 3 in respect of the cause of
\naction dated 26.04.2008 and 30.04.2008.<\/p>\n

\t18. So far as the second cause of action dated 30.04.2008 is concerned, it
\nwas a letter alleged to have been written by the first petitioner to the Public
\nRelation Officer, Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-IV, Dindigul seeking for certain
\ninformation from the said office regarding the employment of the first
\npetitioner’s son. The allegations in the said letter is in respect of the first
\npetitioner’s son’s employment and he is a male member and the first respondent
\nis in no way aggrieved as it was not addressed to her office. Moreover, the son
\nof the first petitioner, who is the husband of the first respondent, is the
\naggrieved person and not the first respondent. The said letter would in any way
\naffect or harm the first respondent to give a complaint against the petitioners
\nunder the provisions of the said Act.<\/p>\n

\t19. Regarding the third cause of action dated 09.05.2008, it has been
\ncategorically mentioned in the complaint that the petitioners 1 and 2 and two
\nother persons had come to the office of the first respondent and the second
\npetitioner had abused the first respondent, slapped on her cheek and twisted her
\nhand. It was also alleged that the first petitioner had criminally intimidated
\nthe first respondent and for that the first respondent had given a complaint to
\nNorth Town Police Station, Dindigul and she was given with a receipt in
\nC.S.R.No.128 of 2008. It has been also told that the Police is yet to take
\naction against the petitioners. It has not been averred by the first respondent
\nthat the Police, North Town Police Station, Dindigul had dropped the action.
\nWhen the said case is pending for the same cause of action, the complaint given
\nby the first respondent in the third cause of action is not sustainable. It has
\nbeen taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, which
\nwould be certainly amounting to ‘double jeopardy’, as prohibited by the
\nConstitutional Law. Whenever a complaint is given by the Protection Officer
\nbefore the Court, the Court must apply its mind and go through the provisions of
\nthe special enactment and to take cognizance of the cases, if the allegations
\nare attracting the provisions of the said Act. But, in this case, it is evident
\nthat it had abruptly taken the complaint without going through the provisions of
\nthe said Act.<\/p>\n

\t20. For the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view that the
\ncomplaint does not disclose any cause of action against the petitioners 2 and 3
\neven though they are the relatives of the husband of the aggrieved wife and no
\ncase is made out in all the three causes of action namely, 26.04.2008,
\n30.04.2008 and 09.05.2008. As regards, the first petitioner is concerned, the
\nfirst respondent, who is said to be the aggrieved wife, had chosen to file
\ncomplaint against the first petitioner being the closest relative of her husband
\nfor all the three cause of action. It is found that the cause of action dated
\n30.04.2008 and 09.05.2008 can not be sustained against the first petitioner.
\nThe second cause of action dated 30.04.2008 had pointed out only at the husband
\nof the first respondent and not against the first respondent. Regarding the
\nthird cause of action dated 09.05.2008 already a Police complaint is pending
\nbefore the Dindigul North Police and the present complaint based on the same
\ncause of action dated 09.05.2008 would be certainly amounting to a ‘double
\njeopardy’. The cause of action dated 26.04.2008 could alone be taken cognizance
\nby the court and that too only against the first petitioner. It is already
\nconsidered that an adult female relative of the husband of the aggrieved person
\nmay also be proceeded under the provisions of the Act. For the foregoing
\ndiscussions, it has become necessary for this Court to quash the entire case
\nagainst the 2nd and 3rd petitioner and the case in respect of causes of action
\ndated 30.04.2008 and 09.05.2008 against the first petitioner. Accordingly the
\ncognizance taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, in
\nC.C.No.465 of 2008 has been partially quashed and the learned Judicial
\nMagistrate No.II, Dindigul is competent to proceed against the first petitioner
\nalone in respect of the cause of action dated 26.04.2008 only and nothing-else.<\/p>\n

\t21. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner at this
\njuncture regarding the claim for compensation of Rs.10 lakhs should have been
\nreferred to. According to the provisions of the said Act, only the penalty has
\nbeen envisaged under Section 31 of the Act. Therefore, there is no provision for
\nawarding compensation.<\/p>\n

\t22. According to the provisions of the Act, there is no reference as to
\nthe awarding of compensation. Therefore it is open for the learned Judicial
\nMagistrate No.II, Dindigul, to apply his mind at the time of trial and to pass
\nappropriate orders in accordance with law.<\/p>\n

\t23. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is ordered partially and
\nthe cognizance taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul in
\nC.C.No.465 of 2008 is quashed in respect of the case taken on file against the
\npetitioners 2 and 3 and in respect of the causes of action namely, 30.04.2008
\nand 09.05.2008 against the first petitioner. The learned Judicial Magistrate
\nNo.II, Dindigul is competent to proceed with the case against the first
\npetitioner in respect of the cause of action dated 26.04.2008 alone. Petition is
\nordered accordingly. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.<\/p>\n

nbj<\/p>\n

To
\n1.The District Social Welfare Office cum
\n The District Dowry Prohibition Officer, Dindigul.<\/p>\n

2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28\/04\/2009 CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11066 of 2008 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 1.K.Kamala 2.K.Pasungili…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1091,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_customify_content_layout":"","_customify_sidebar":"","_customify_page_header_display":"","_customify_disable_header":"","_customify_disable_header_top":"","_customify_disable_header_main":"","_customify_disable_header_bottom":"","_customify_disable_page_title":"","_customify_disable_content_vertical_padding":"","_customify_disable_footer_top":"","_customify_disable_footer_main":"","_customify_disable_footer_bottom":"","_customify_breadcrumb_display":"","_customify_header_transparent_display":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[65],"tags":[13750,14794,14227,15713,744,15712,15542,15714,69,113,13331,3844,108,3814,115],"class_list":["post-524","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgments","tag-13750","tag-compensation","tag-domestic-relationship","tag-employees-association","tag-husband","tag-judicial-magistrate-no","tag-law","tag-magistrate-no","tag-marriage","tag-petition","tag-petitioner","tag-property","tag-relationship","tag-section","tag-wife"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/524","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1091"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=524"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/524\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=524"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=524"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=524"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}