Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of S.S. Shinde and Manish Pitale, JJ., quashed proceedings initiated against the petitioner (daughter) by her mother under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
In the present matter, a daughter sought the quashing of proceedings initiated by her mother under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) claiming that she was facing the ire of her mother due to matrimonial discord between her mother and father.
Further, she added that she has been unnecessarily dragged into the said proceedings pending before the Magistrate Court which is resulting in a detrimental effect on her career as also her prospects of studying abroad.
Respondent 1, Mother of the petitioner had filed an application against the husband under Sections 12,18, 19, 20 and 22 of the DV Act before the Metropolitan Magistrate. Respondent 1 had raised various grievances seeking protection order, monetary relief, residence order and order for grant of compensation.
Petitioner has plans to go abroad for further studies and for that in the application forms while seeking Visa a declaration was to be given regarding pendency of criminal cases against the applicant. But due to the pendency of said proceeding initiated under the DV Act by her mother are creating hurdles for the petitioner to successfully seek Visa.
In view of the above circumstances, present petition was filed to seek quashing of the said proceedings by her mother, insofar as she was concerned.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The intent of the DV Act is to ensure that a woman who faces abuse at the hands of her husband or a male partner has an avenue to raise her grievance against such person and also any relative of such person. Ordinarily, this would include the relatives on the side of the husband or male partner.
In the present matter, only at place of the application filed by respondent 1 under the DV Act before the Magistrate, allegation was made against the petitioner.
It is only at one place in paragraph (m) of the application that an allegation is made against the Petitioner that on the husband of Respondent No.1 (father of the Petitioner) instigating the Petitioner, she allegedly assaulted the Respondent No.1.
As per the material on record, petitioner continued to live with her father, and this was perhaps a reason why she added the petitioner as a party to the proceedings initiated under the DV Act.
Bench stated that it appeared that a single allegation made against the petitioner was an exaggeration and it had arisen out of anger of respondent 1 against the petitioner, as she continued to reside with her father, i.e. the husband of respondent 1.
“…bitterness in the matrimonial relationship between Respondent No.1 and her husband has spilled over to the children, particularly against the Petitioner”
Respondent 1 developed bitterness and anger, not only against her husband but her daughter.
Bench was surprised to note that petitioner’s own mother was hell-bent upon creating obstructions in her progress. This was evident from the affidavit filed by respondent 1, wherein it was stated that it is not necessary for the petitioner to go abroad for higher education and that the said ground was being raised only as an excuse to avoid legal proceedings initiated by respondent 1.
High Court opined that the said allegation raised against the petitioner was exaggerated and her anger and bitterness arose from the matrimonial discord with her husband leading to serious impediment in the progress of her own daughter.
“…allegations seem to be made in a fit of anger and they could be said to be improbable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.”
Bench referred to the Supreme Court decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, with regard to exercising jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.
Following categories of cases by way of illustrations wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise are:
“(1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
Observing the above-stated, and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, Bench held that the allegations levelled by respondent 1 against the petitioner, borne out of the matrimonial discord with her husband, can be said to be inherently improbable and therefore, they fall in Category-5 laid down in the above-quoted portion of the Supreme Court decision.
High Court held that the present case was fit to exercise jurisdiction to quash the proceedings initiated by respondent 1 under the DV Act, insofar as they pertain to the petitioner. [Vanisha Vincent Rodrigues v. Jyoti Vincent Rodrigues, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 613, decided on 20-04-2021]