20.02.2025 Vikas Sinha S/o B.P. Sinha Aged About 38 Years R/o House No. 701 v. 1. 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Gariaband Tah.And Dist- Gariaband
Case Details
Page 1 of 15 2025:CGHC:8834 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 1916 of 2024 Reserved on : 05 .12.2024 Delivered on : 20.02.2025 Vikas Sinha S/o B.P. Sinha Aged About 38 Years R/o House No. 701, Sarita Building, Heeranandani State Thane, Dist - Konkan (Maharashtra), Present R/o Flat No. 1902, Tower D, Ajnara Le Garden, Greater Noida West 201301 Dist- Goutam Buddha Nagar (U.P.) ---- Applicant Versus 1. 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Gariaband Tah.And Dist- Gariaband (C.G.) Smt. Darshana Sharma, W/o Vikas Sinha Aged About 33 Years R/o House No. 1491, Civil Lines, Gariaband, Dist-Gariaband (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate. For State : Ms. Avelin Juneja Gambhir, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 2 : Appeared in Person. Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. CAV ORDER 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of case bearing Misc. Criminal Case No. 26/2022 under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Facts
pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband (C.G.). 2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the marriage between petitioner and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.02.20 14:25:47 +0530 Page 2 of 15 23.11.2015 before Registrar of Marriages, Mumbai and thereafter as per custom on 13.12.2015 at Jamshedpur (Jharkhand) and out of their wedlock, one son namely Vidarsh was born on 02.10.2018. It is case of the petitioner that he opened savings bank account in the name of respondent No. 2 in RBL Bank, IDFC Bank at Mumbai and two other accounts of Citibank and State Bank of India were also operated by them. The petitioner deposited total amount of Rs. 75 lacs in the bank account of respondent No. 2. On 17.05.2022, respondent No. 2 asked the petitioner to book flight tickets and came to Gariyaband along with her son. After coming to Gariyaband, respondent No. 2 transferred all her Mumbai bank account to Gariyaband where the petitioner had deposited total amount of Rs. 75 lacs and lodged a complaint on 09.11.2022 against the petitioner with regard to Domestic Violence before Women & Child Development Department Gariyaband and the said department filed a case bearing Misc. Criminal Case No. 26/2022 on 15.11.2022 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gariyaband. On 17.05.2023, respondent No. 2 also lodged a complaint bearing FIR No. 139/2023 before Police Station- Gariyaband against the petitioner under Section 498-A of IPC which has been challenged by the petitioner by filing petition bearing CRMP No. 1261/2023 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 18.05.2023 has quashed FIR No. 139/2023 registered against the petitioner before Police Station- Gariyaband. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Page 3 of 15 petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. He would further submit that the petitioner has not played any active role in committing the said offences and and even he has no knowledge about the said offence. He would further submit after coming to Gariyaband when the petitioner asked the complainant to come back to Mumbai then she refused to return back with her son and later on the petitioner came to know that the complainant/wife has transferred all her Bank accounts of Mumbai without informing the petitioner with intention of deceit him in which the petitioner has deposited huge sum of lakhs of amount. He would further submit that 15.05.2023 on complaint of the petitioner regarding commission of breach of trust by the respondent/wife by misusing huge amount of rupees about Rs. 75,00,000/-, the police of Police Station- Gariaband being influenced by the wife has not registered the case and given NCR of Section 155 of Cr.P.C. directing the parties to approach the concerned Court as there is monetary matter between husband and wife. 4. He would further submit that on 17.05.2023, the petitioner made a complaint before the Police Station- Tikrapara, Raipur and informing the police about the entire case and registered the crime against the complainant/wife as Crime No. 241/2023 at Page 4 of 15 P.S. Tikrapara, Dist- Raipur (C.G.). He would further submit that wife/respondent No. 2 has not only transferred all the bank accounts but has also changed the mobile numbers and all other information given at the time of opening an account in the banks, so that the petitioner could not get any information related to the banks and transactions in these banks and slowly the wife/respondent No. 2 has continuously transferred the amount of Mumbai accounts to her other accounts operated by her prior to her marriage. The petitioner is willing to keep wife and his son, therefore, he moved application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restoration of conjugal rights even then the respondent/wife with intention to commit breach of trust not going with the husband. He would further submit the petitioner who is real victim in the whole case of domestic violence from the hands of respondent No.2/wife but he has been falsely been implicated in the case just to ruin his reputation in the society, abonded him, deprived from love and affection of his son and also caused heavy financial loss of about Rs. 75 Lakhs to the petitioner. He would further submit that respondent No.2 is taking undue advantage of the Domestic Violence, which is clear abuse of the
Legal Reasoning
process of law because as per complaint prima facie no offence has been made out against the present petitioner regarding domestic violence and continuation of proceeding is nothing but an abuse of process of law which must be quashed by this Court while exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 5. He would further submit that at the time of hearing the bail matter Page 5 of 15 of the complainant, on 19.07.2023, she was directed to return the amount of Rs. 75 lakhs to which she took sometime to comply the order thereafter vide order dated 10.08.2023, the complainant was directed to deposit the amount in the joint name of husband, wife and child for the period of one year and further vide order dated 12.01.2024 the concerned Bank was directed not to allow anyone for using the FDR kept with them and the FDR is to be extended for further one year until further order, the FDR shall not be encashed without leave of the Court. He would further submit that the complainant just to gain monitory benefit and to humiliate petitioner/ husband has filed the complaint relating to Domestic violence, which is required to be interfered by this Hon’ble Court by exercising it’s power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. He would further submit that just to take monitory advantage, the complaint of Domestic Violence has been filed which may kindly be quashed by this Court and would refer to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr. [(2024) 6 S.C.R. 129] and would pray for allowing the petition. 6. On the other hand, the respondent No. 2/wife opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned trial court has taken cognizance and has passed an interim order which has been challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Court of Additional Page 6 of 15 Sessions Judge, Gariyaband and the same is still pending as such, this petition for quashing of the proceeding is not maintainable. She would further submit that there are serious allegations of committing domestic violence against the petitioner and there is evidence to substantiate the same which can be ascertained during the trial only. In this situation, the complaint of domestic violence can not be quashed. The complaint under the domestic violence and the FIR under section 498-A of IPC are different and because the FIR under Section 498-A of IPC has been quashed, the complaint of domestic violence can not be quashed on the same ground alone and would pray for dismissal of instant petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 8. From the submission made by the parties, the point emerges for determination before this Court is:- “Whether on account of quashing of the FIR under Section 498-A of IPC, the complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, deserves to be quashed by this Court?” 9. To appreciate this point this Court has to see the aims and objects of the DV Act. From perusal of aims and objects, it is quite vivid that this Act has been enacted with an object of ensuring woman’s right to reside in her matrimonial home. This act has special feature with special provisions under law which provides protection to a woman live in violence free home. Page 7 of 15 Section 2(f) of the DV Act defines domestic relationship which is as under:- “Section 2(f)- Domestic relationship “means a relationship between two personas who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family; 10. Section 3 (a) of the DV Act defines domestic violence and Section 3 (iv) of the DV Act defines economic abuse which are as under:- “Section 3(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limp or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or section 3 (iv) of economic abuse:- 3(iv) economic abuse includes (a)deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person in entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a Court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, household necessities ... 11. From bare perusal of definition of Domestic Violence, it is quite vivid that any harm or injury to woman whether it is mental or physical with intent to physical abuse, sexual abuse and emotional abuse and economical abuse will fall within the definition of Domestic Violence. This Court has also gone through the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of the same parties wherein the complaint under Section 498-A has been quashed. The Court has taken into consideration that there is no specific allegation against the Page 8 of 15 petitioner with regard to cruelty as defined in the explanation appended to Section 498-A of IPC and no specific instance has been cited by respondent No. 2 in this regard. This Court has also recorded its finding how the petitioner subjected her to harassment in Mumbai and the allegations are so far-fetched and improbable that continuing the criminal process would result in patent injustice to the petitioner accordingly it has quashed but in the report submitted by the Protection Officer before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class under the Domestic Violence Act, the Protection Officer has mentioned the incident which reads as under:- ^^vukosnd ,oa vkosfndk ds e/; o"kZ 2013 ls ifjp; gqvk ,oa o"kZ 2015 ls nksuksa ds e/; izse izlax gksus ds dkj.k nksuksa ifjokj dh lgefr ls lkekftd ,oa fgUnw jhfr fjoktksa ds vuqlkj 13 fnlacj 2015 dks te’ksniqj ¼>kj[k.M½ esa fookg lEiUu gqvk Fkk ,oa nksuksa ds nkEiR; laca/kksa ls ,d iq= fon’kZ dk tUe gqvkA vkosfndk fookg ds iwoZ lk¶Vos;j bathfu;j Fkh blfy, vukosnd fookg ds 15 fnu ckn ls gh ukSdjh djus ls euk dj ;g dgdj 'kkjhfjd@ekufld :i ls izrkfM+r djuk 'kq: dj fn;k fd Þvxj rqEgsa ukSdjh djuk gS rks eq>s rykd ns nks vkSj vius ek;dk tkdj ukSdjh djksAÞ bl izdkj vuksond }kjk vkosfndk dks Hkk.Mqi ftyk eqacbZ ¼egkjk"Vª½ esa TokbZu djus ls euk dj vR;f/kd ekjihV dj izrkfaM+r fd;k blfy, vkosfndk ukSdjh NksM+ nh ,oa vkosfndk dks ?kj ls ckgj fudyus euk djrk Fkk] fdlh fj’rsnkj ds ?kj dksbZ Hkh dk;ZØe esa tkus ls euk djrk Fkk ,oa ckj&ckj eqacbZ ls xfj;kcan ¼N-x-½ Hkst nsrk FkkA vukosnd }kjk vkosfndk dks ckj&ckj ;g dgdj izrkfM+r djrk Fkk fd& Þrqe nsgkrh xkao NRrhlx<+ dh gks] blfy, rqEgsa bafXy’k cksyus ugha vkrh gS] ,oa ;g dgdj viekfur@izrkfM+r djrk Fkk fd& Þrqe dkyh] rqEgkjk isV fudyk gqvk gSAÞ vukosnd Ø- 1 ¼ifr½ }kjk ckj&ckj vkosfndk dks ;g dgdj izrkfM+r djrk Fkk fd Þrqe fookg ds iwoZ pfj=ghu Fkh djds [email protected] vkfn ij dyad@vfHk;ksx yxkrk FkkA vukosnd Ø- 2 ¼lkl½ }kjk ckj&ckj ;g dgdj viekfur djrh Fkh fd Þrqe ngst esa dqN ysdj ugha vk;h gksA vukosndx.k vkosfndk dks ?kjsyq NksVh&NksVh ckrksa dks ysdj ,oa vkosfndk tc vius iq= fon’kZ dks tUe nh xbZ mlds 8&10 fnu ckn Page 9 of 15 tc vkosfndk }kjk vius iq= dks nq/k fiyk jgh Fkh rc viuh lkl dks njoktk yxkus ¼can½ djus cksyus ij vukosnd Ø- 2 }kjk vukosnd Ø- 1 vius iq= dks crkus ij vukosnd Ø- 1 viuh eka dh ckrksa esa vkdj vR;f/kd Øksf/kr gksdj vkosfndk dks tehu esa iVddj fxjk fn;k ,oa cky uksapdj vR;f/kd ekjihV dj jgk Fkk rc vkosfndk }kjk chp&cpko djus ij mls Hkh /kDdk nsdj tehu esa fxjk fn;k ftlds dkj.k 'kkjhfjd pksVsa vk;h FkhA vukosnd Ø- 1 }kjk vkosfndk dks ckj&ckj rqe ej tkrh rks T;knk vPNk Fkk djds izrkfM+r djrk Fkk ,oa rqeus] eq>s tknw&Vksuk djds Qalk;h gks] eSa lykuk 40&50 yk[k :i;s derk gw¡] rqe nsgkrh xkao dh gks rqe esjs yk;d ugha gks] rqe dkyh] isV fudyk gqvk gS] bafXy’k cksyus ugha vkrh] esjs Åij cks> gks] blfy, eSa rqEgsa ugha j[kuk pkgrk] rqe eq>s rykd ns nks djds viekfur@izrkfM+r dj 'kkjhfjd@ekufld :i ls vR;f/kd izrkfM+r djrk FkkA vukosnd }kjk vkosfndk dks ,e-Vsd- djus ls euk dj fdlh Hkh 'kSf{kd LFkku esa tkus ls euk djrk Fkk ,oa vkosfndk dks ukSdjh djus ls euk djus ij ukSdjh NksM+ nh xbZA 13&05&2022 dks vkosfndk /kkfeZd ;K dh leh{kk cSBd esa tkuk pkgrh Fkh ysfdu vukosnd Ø- 4 }kjk vkosfndk dks leh{kk cSBd esa tkus ls euk dj 50&60 FkIiM+ gkFk@eqDdk ls ekjus ij vkosfndk dks vk¡[k] ukd] flj] da/ks esa xgjh 'kkjhfjd pksVsa vk;h FkhA ?kj ls ckgj tkus ls euk djrk Fkk& ekfuZax okd] lkekftd dk;ZØe] fj’rsnkjksa ds ?kj ,oa ekrk&firk ls eksckbZy ls ckrphr djus ls euk djrk FkkA 'kkjhfjd@ekufld :i ls vR;f/kd izrkfM+r djrk FkkA vukosnd }kjk vkosfndk ,oa mlds vo;Ld iq= fon’kZ dks vxLr 2022 ls Hkj.k&iks"k.k ds fy, :i;s&iSlk diM+s] nokbZ;ka vkfn miyC/k ugha djokrk gSA vukonsd }kjk vkosfndk ukSdjh djus dh vuqefr ugha nsus ij Hkk.Mqi ¼eqacbZ&egkjk"Vª½ esa lkW¶Vos;j bathfu;j ds in ij dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus ls euk dj fn;kA vukosd Ø- 2 ¼lkl½ }kjk vkosfndk ds lksus dk usdysl] dku dk lksus dk vkB ux] vukosndx.k }kjk vukosndx.k }kjk vkosfndk 'kkjhfjd@ekufld@vkfFkZd :i ls vR;f/kd izrkfM+r djrk FkkA** 12. Now coming to the allegation made in the report, it is quite vivid that allegation of domestic violence is prima facie available in the report. Whether these allegations are true or correct have to be ascertained by recording of the evidence. As such, at this juncture, this Court cannot record a finding that the petitioner has not committed any domestic violence to respondent No. 2. The Page 10 of 15 allegations levelled in the report alleging that the petitioner has harassed complainant by abusing filthy language and assaulted her many times which is supported by the medical report attached in the complaint which prima facie suggests that there is some material against the petitioner though it’s correctness is required to be ascertained by recording of evidence and determination of it by thread bearing analysis of evidence placed before it. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case where inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised for quashment of FIR registered against the petitioner. 13. In view of well settled position of law and parameters set out with regard to interference in the criminal proceedings at the initial stage, it is quite vivid that no prima facie case for interference is made out. The exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by this Court to quash the complaint or the FIR is subject matter of adjudication by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in various judgments. Some of the judgments are as under:- (A) Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of A.P. Vs. Golconda Linga Swamy & another {(2004) 6 SCC 522}, held as under:- “10. In all these cases there was either statements of witnesses or seizure of illicit distilled liquor which factors cannot be said to be without relevance. Whether the material already in existence or to be collected during investigation would be sufficient for holding the concerned accused persons guilty has to be considered at the time of trial. At the time of framing the charge it can be decided whether prima facie case has been made out showing Page 11 of 15 commission of an offence and involvement of the charged persons. At that stage also evidence cannot be gone into meticulously. It is immaterial whether the case is based on direct or circumstantial evidence. Charge can be framed, if there are materials showing possibility about the commission of the crime as against certainty. That being so, the interference at the threshold with the F.I.R. is to be in very exceptional circumstances as held in R.P. Kapoor and Bhajan Lal cases (supra). 11. Ultimately, the acceptability of the materials to fasten culpability on the accused persons is a matter of trial. These are not the cases where it can be said that the FIR did not disclose commission of an offence. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in quashing the FIR in the concerned cases. 12. So far as Criminal Appeal Nos. 1183/2003, 1193- 1196/2003 and Criminal Appeals arising out of SLPs(Crl.) Nos. 2191/2003, 2632/2003, 2633/2003, and 3463/2003 are concerned, we find that the FIR did not disclose commission of an offence without anything being added or subtracted from the recitals therein. Though the FIR is not intended to be an encyclopedia of the background scenario, yet even skeletal features must disclose the commission of an offence. The position is not so in these cases. Therefore, the High Court's interference does not suffer from any legal infirmity, though the reasonings indicated by the High Court do not have our approval." (B) Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rajiv Thapar & others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor {(2013) 3 SCC 330}, held as under:- “28. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., must make a just and rightful choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of allegations levelled by the prosecution/ complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is 2 (2013) 3 SCC 330 not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused is. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/ complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so, because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the Page 12 of 15 prosecution/ complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed, by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position, that in a case where the prosecution/complainant has levelled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s) levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held.” (C) Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani & others {(2017) 2 SCC 779}, held as under:- “15. We have referred to the said decisions only to stress upon the issue, how the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court in a proceeding relating to quashment of FIR can be justified. We repeat even at the cost of repetion that the said power has to be exercised in a very sparing manner and is not to be used to choke or smother the prosecution that is legitimate. The surprise that was expressed almost four decades ago in Kurukshetra University case compels us to observe that we are also surprised by the impugned order.” (D) Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & others {AIR 2021 SC 1918}, held as under, relevant paragraphs are reproduced below:- “iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the 'rarest of rare cases (not to be 3 (2017) 2 SCC 779 4 AIR 2021 SC 1918 confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; Page 13 of 15 vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; x) Save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;” (E) Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. AryanSingh {Criminal Appeal Nos. 1025- 1026_of 2023 dated 10.04.2023} has held as under :- “4.1 From the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering the applications against the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Courton conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law,atthestageof Page 14 of 15 discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved.This is not the stage where the prosecution / investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution / investigating agency. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider “whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not”. 14. From the material placed on record, it is quite vivid that the complainant/respondent No. 2 has made certain allegations against the petitioner and whether the allegations are true or correct, cannot be ascertained in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as per the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court as aforestated. Even otherwise it is well settled position of law that the provisions of Section 498-A of IPC and Domestic Violence Act work in a different sphere and cannot be quashed on the count that the proceeding under Section 498-A of IPC has been quashed by this Court. Hence, the point determined by this Court is answered against the petitioner. 15. Accordingly, the instant petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 16. The observation made by this Court is not bearing any effect on the trial of the case. The learned trial court will decide the Page 15 of 15 criminal trial in accordance with evidence, material placed on record, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court while deciding present petition. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun