Quashed

Guddi Devi and Another v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Aug 2022CRMMO/586/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed criminal proceedings under DV Act against two petitioners (husband's sisters) for lack of specific allegations against them, allowing the case to continue against other respondents only. Held that general interference claims do not justify prosecution where initial complaint was against husband.

What did the court decide?

Quashed proceedings qua petitioners in case CNR No. HPMA100004852019, filing No. 485/2019; directed JMFC to continue proceedings against other respondents.

Guddi Devi and Another Vs State of Hp and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA ON THE 5^th .DAY OF AUGUST, 2022 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC No. 586 OF 2019

¶2

BETWEEN

¶3

1. GUDDI DEVI, W/O LATE SH.MUNISH KUMAR, R/O VILLAGE PARYAL, P.O. SAMOUR, TEHSIL DHARAMPUR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶4

2. KIRNA DEVI, W/O SH. SATISH KUMAR, R/O VILLAGE TAROLA, P.O. DHAWALI, TEHSIL DHARAMPUR, DISTT. MANDI.

¶5

PETITIONERS

¶6

(BY MR. ASHOK K. VERMA, ADVOCATE)

¶7

AND

¶8

1.STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, THROUGH SECRETARY (HOME), SHIMLA-2

¶9

2. AMITA DEVI, W/O SH. PREM PAL VERMA, S/O SH. MAN SINGH, R/O VILL. CHAMBI, P.O. MARHI, TEHSIL DHARAMPUR, DISTT.MANDI, HP.

¶10

3. PREM PAL VERMA, SON OF SH. MAN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE CHAMBI, P.O. MARHI, TEHSIL DHARAMPUR, DISTT. MANDI, H.P.

¶11

4. MAN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE CHAMBI, P.O. MARHI, TEHSIL DHARAMPUR, DISTT. MANDI, H.P.

¶12

5. SHEELA DEVI, W/O SH. MAN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE CHAMBI, P.O. MARHI, TEHSIL DHARAMPUR, DISTT. MANDI, H.P.

¶13

RESPONDENTS

¶14

(SH. RAJU RAM RAHI, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR R-1)

¶15

¶16

(MS. ANU TULI, ADVOCATE FOR- R-2 SH. TEK CHAND SHARMA, ADVOCATE, FOR R-3 to 5)

¶17

whether approved for Reporting?

¶18

This petition coming on for pronouncement this day, the Court passed the following:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The instant petition preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.PC’), has been filed by the petitioners, for quashing of complaint and proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ( in short DV Act) in case No. 9/2019, titled as Amita vs. Prem Pal & others, pending before Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Court No.2, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. qua the petitioners.

¶21

Respondent No. 2 Amita Devi is married to respondent No.3 Prem Pal Verma. Respondents No. 4 and 5 are parents-in-law of respondent No. 2 Amita Devi, whereas Petitioners No. 1 and 2 are daughters of respondents No. 4 and 5 and sisters of respondent No.3 Prem Pal Verma, who are married in different villages.

¶22

On 4.12.2018, respondent No.2 approached the Police Station Dharampur and informed orally that she was beaten by her husband and she requested for her medical examination whereupon she was asked to contact and meet Investigating Officer, who at that time, was in the Civil Hospital,

¶23

¶24

Dharampur in connection with another case. Thereafter, complainant was medically examined and her statement was recorded. Investigating Officer found it a matter of domestic violence and, therefore, after recording it in the Daily Diary GD entry No.3, dated 5.12.2018, matter was referred by the police, vide communication 7.12.2018 to Child Development Project Officer, Dharampur for taking steps and action under DV Act.

¶25

In sequel to aforesaid communication, Protection Officer prepared a report on Form-I prescribed under D.V Act and submitted it to the Magistrate alongwith Form No.II application to Magistrate under Section 12 of D.V. Act. In column No. 2 of Form-I, details of respondents have been given, wherein names of Prem Pal Verma (husband), Man Singh (father) and Sheela Devi (mother) (respondents No. 3 to 5) as well as Guddi Devi and Kirna Devi (petitioners) have been mentioned as respondents. In column No. 4 of Form-I, persons, who caused domestic violence, have been mentioned as husband and father in law (respondents No. 3 and 4 herein). Forms I and II have been signed by respondent No.2 Amita Devi. In these Forms, there is no specific allegation against Guddi Devi and Kirna Devi regarding their act or conduct causing physical, virbal, domestic or economic violence and/or dowry related harassment.

¶26

After receiving the aforesaid complaint/application, learned JMFC issued summons to respondents before him who are respondents No. 3 to 5 and petitioner herein.

¶27

¶28

In reply to the complaint, filed on behalf of respondents No. 3 to 5, it was stated that petitioners were married daughters of respondents No. 4 and 5 (Man Singh and Sheela Devi) and they were married and residing in their respective houses.

¶29

In response to reply, rejoinder was filed on behalf of respondent No.2, wherein it was stated that daughters of respondent Man Singh mostly resided in their parental house and interfered in the life of the complainant respondent No.2.

¶30

8 On record, there are no allegations levelled in the report and complaint filed before the Magistrate, against petitioners even general in nature, much less specifically. Though, in response to reply, in rejoinder it has been alleged that daughters of respondent No.4 Man Singh used to stay in their parental house and interfered in life of complainant-respondent No.2 but again there is no specific act alleged to have been committed by them warranting action under D.V. Act against them. A general statement that the petitioners interfered in the life of complainant (respondent No.2) in absence of detail of nature of interference as well as act and conduct of the petitioners, is not sufficient for accusing and prosecuting petitioners under DV Act, particularly when at the first instance, respondent No.2 complained to police about beatings by his husband only. But after approaching the Protection Officer, other family members, i.e parents and sisters of husband, were also arrayed as a respondents. However, again there were no allegations of any

¶31

¶32

kind against the sisters of husband (petitioners), in the report prepared by Protection Officer and application submitted to learned Magistrate.

¶33

Further, it also appears that respondent No.2 complainant was pursuing the proceedings only against her husband and father-in-law (respondents No. 3 and 4) against whom restraint order has been passed from causing any domestic violence against respondent No.2-complainant and further respondent No.3 ( husband of respondent No.2) has also been directed to provide maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month to respondent No.2. There is no interim order passed against the petitioners.

¶34

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that petitioners, who are sisters-in-law of respondent No.2, are also equally responsible for domestic violence against respondent No.2 and, therefore, their names have been included in the details of respondents in Form -I prepared by Protection Officer, and in the application it has been clearly stated that respondents are harassing and torturing respondent No.2 which includes petitioners also. Further that, petitioners initially were avoiding service and even after service they did not appear before the JMFC in proceedings under DV Act but approached this Court directly and as has also been stated in the rejoinder they were also liable to be punished for interference in the life of the respondent No.2-complainant.

¶35

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has further submitted that in para 8 to 10 of affidavit filed by respondent No.2-complainant on Form

¶36

¶37

No.III, as prescribed under DV Act, it has been categorically stated that respondents have threatened complainant physically, economically and mentally for which they are liable to suffer the orders of the Court under D.V. Act. It has been further submitted that till date despite passing of order by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, no amount of maintenance has been paid by respondent No.4. Further that, respondent No.3 has five sisters but respondent No.2 has impleaded only two sisters because other three sisters are not interfering and are not responsible for domestic violence against respondent No.2, but two sisters who are responsible for that have been arrayed as party respondent in proceedings under D.V Act, and therefore, present petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶38

In aforesaid facts and circumstances, material placed before me and considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any plausible and cogent material on record so as to justify impleadment of petitioners as respondents in the application/complaint submitted on behalf of respondent No.2 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Bald allegations, without any specific averments with respect to the act and conduct of the petitioners, cannot be basis to continue proceedings against them before the learned JMFC and, therefore, I find merit in the petition and accordingly proceedings qua the petitioners in case CNR No. HPMA100004852019, filing No. 485/2019, Compt. DV Act 9/2019 titled as Amita vs. Prem Pal Pending before the Court of learned JMFC,

¶39

¶40

Court No.2, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, HP., are quashed with direction to the JMFC to continue the proceedings against rest of the respondents in accordance with law without being influenced by any order passed by this Court.

¶41

Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending application(s), if any.

¶42

The parties are permitted to use/produce copy of this judgment, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy but if required, may verify passing of order from Website of the High Court.

¶43

(Vivek Singh Thakur), 5^th August, 2022 Judge. (veena)

Guddi Devi and Another v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddi Devi and Another v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulshan Kumar Vs State of Hp

Jai Singh Vs Kalawati

Sunil Dutt Vs State of Hp

State of Hp and Anr. Vs Neetu Sharma

Bala Ram Vs State of Hp

Mohnish Mohan Vs State of Hp