Mr. L.M. Grover, Adv. (Through VC) v. STATE

Judgment

1. This petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 (‘CrPC’) for quashing of the following order(s): (i) order dated 02.02.2023 passed by LD. M.M., Mahila Court-05, South-west District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in the case no. MC 833/2022 titled ‘Poonam Gandhi v. Sumit Gandhi & Ors’ (‘Trial Court’); Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:03.07.2025 16:26:47 CRL.M.C. 1916/2025 (ii) order dated 10.07.2023 passed by LD. ASJ-02, South-west District, New Delhi in the case titled as ‘Poonam Gandhi v. State & Ors.’ bearing C.A. No. 158/2023 (‘Appellate Court’) upholding the Trial Court’s order dated 02.02.2023.

1.1.

In addition, the Petitioner seeks directions to the Trial Court to summon Respondent nos. 3 to 6 to face the proceedings filed under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV act’) by the Petitioner. 2. This petition was initially numbered as W.P.(CRL.) 200/2024, however, vide order dated 11.03.2025, the petition was converted into a CRL.(M.C.) and treated as a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 3. 3.1. Facts relevant to adjudicate the present matters are as under: - It is stated that Petitioner has filed an application/complaint under section 12 of the DV act before the Trial Court against her husband [Respondent no. 2], parents-in-law [Respondent nos. 3 & 4] and her brother- in-law and his wife [Respondent no. 5 & 6] seeking the following reliefs: a. To pass protection order under Section 18 of the DV act by restraining the Respondents from committing any act of domestic violence. b. To pass residence orders under Section 19 of the DV act by directing c. the respondents to provide alternate accommodation To pass the monetary relief under section 20 of the DV act by directing Respondent/husband to pay the minimum amount of Rs. 30.000/- per d. To pass compensation order under section 22 of the DV act by directing the Respondents to pay the aggrieved a sum of Rs. l 0,00,000/- on account of mental torture and agony. Facts alleged in the complaint 3.2. It is stated that the marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent no. 2/husband was solemnized on 01.12.2001 and the expenses of the marriage Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:03.07.2025 16:26:47 CRL.M.C. 1916/2025 were borne by the parents of the Petitioner and a lot of gifts as demanded by Respondent nos. 2 to 6 were as well given by the parents of the Petitioner/complainant. 3.3. It is alleged in the complaint that, after the marriage, from the very next day the Petitioner was subjected to various kind of cruelties by the Respondent nos. 3 & 4/parents-in-law. 3.4. It is alleged in the complaint that till 2004 whenever Petitioner used to touch feet of Respondent no. 4/father-in-law, he used abusive words against her and Respondent no.3/mother-in-law used to make fun of Petitioner's physical appearance. 3.5. It is alleged in the complaint that during the Petitioner’s pregnancy, the Petitioner had requested Respondent nos. 2-6 for installation of air conditioner (‘AC’) in the house, however, not only this request was denied but Respondent No. 3/mother-in-law ill-treated the Petitioner by taunting and passing insulting comments. 3.6. It is alleged that on 15.09.2003, when Petitioner gave birth to a female child, the Respondent nos. 2 to 6 had not only shown resentment; but during the chola ceremony of child, the Petitioner was insulted by the Respondent nos. 2 to 6 due to non-fulfilment of demands; and thereafter Respondent no.2 refused to sit in the hawan of his daughter and the Petitioner had to perform the pooja alone. 3.7. It is alleged that Respondent no. 3/mother-in-law used to not only pass unwarranted remarks but she deprived the Petitioner of her basic needs and did not allow the Petitioner to get some money from the earnings of her husband i.e. Respondent no.2. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:03.07.2025 16:26:47 CRL.M.C. 1916/2025

3.8. It is stated that in the year 2013 the Petitioner and Respondent no. 2 to 6 shifted to a newly purchased house in East Azad Nagar consisting of Ground floor, First floor and Second Floor [‘East Azad Nagar property’]. It is stated that Petitioner along with Respondent no.2 was residing at the Second Floor of East Azad Nagar property. It is stated at that time Petitioner was also forced by the Respondent nos. 2 to 6 to sell her gold bangles. 3.9. It is alleged that even after meeting all their demands, the behavior of Respondent nos. 2 to 6 never changed and the use of abusive words against the Petitioner and her parents became a routine activity. 3.10. It is alleged that on 15.06.2014 Respondent no. 2/husband had slapped the complainant in front of Respondent nos. 3 to 6 and instead of stopping him/husband; Respondent no.3/mother-in-law stated that Petitioner deserved that slap. 3.11. It is alleged that, in 2017, during the gall bladder surgery of Petitioner neither Respondent no. 2 nor Respondent nos. 3 to 5 helped her. 3.12. It is stated that in 2015-2016 a one BHK house [situated nearby to the East Azad Nagar property, in the same street] was purchased in the name of complainant/Petitioner and Respondent no.6 [i.e. Smt. Amita Gandhi] by Respondent nos. 2 to 5. It is stated that on 24.08.2020 the Petitioner along with the Respondent no. 2/husband shifted to the said one BHK house and resided their until 02.10.2021. It is alleged that even then Respondent no. 3/mother-in-law used to instigate her son [Respondent no. 2] against the Petitioner and her daughter. 3.13. It is stated that since the Petitioner was unable to bear any further abuses of Respondent nos. 2 to 6 and the aforesaid acts amounted to domestic Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:03.07.2025 16:26:47 CRL.M.C. 1916/2025 violence, therefore, aggrieved by the said acts the Petitioner in November, 2022 filed the complaint under the DV Act. Impugned orders 4. The Trial Court upon hearing the arguments and after perusing the complaint on the issue of summoning Respondent nos. 3 to 6, vide impugned order dated 02.02.2023 held that there was no domestic relationship between Petitioner and Respondent nos. 3 to 6 and accordingly the Trial Court deleted them from the array of parties. 5. The Trial Court observed that the Petitioner along with Respondent No. 2 was admittedly residing in a separate property and had established a separate household. The Trial Court, therefore, concluded that there was no domestic relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 3 to 6. 6. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an appeal under Section 29 of the DV act against the order dated 02.02.2023 wherein the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the view taken by the Trial Court in deleting Respondent nos. 3 to 6 from the array of parties. Arguments of the Petitioner 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner stated that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to take into consideration the allegations levelled by the Petitioner against Respondent nos. 3 to 6 in the complaint since the said acts complained of constitute domestic violence. 7.1. He stated that Respondent nos. 3 to 6 are covered within the definition of respondent under section 2 (q) of the DV act. 7.2. He stated that the mere fact that Respondent nos. 3 to 6 had been living separately from Petitioner since 2013 would not absolve them from the acts of domestic violence. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:03.07.2025 16:26:47 CRL.M.C. 1916/2025

7.3. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Prabha Tyagi vs. Kamlesh Devi1 to contend that even if the married couple sets up a separate residence, then, as well the complaint under DV Act can be filed against the respondent(s) who were previously residing in the same shared household. 7.4. He stated that Respondent no. 2 has failed to maintain his daughter as well due to which she was constrained to file petition under section 20 (3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, which is pending before court of Family Court-02, Southwest District, Dwarka District Court, Delhi (‘Family Court’). 7.5. He stated that Trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to consider the specific allegations made against Respondent nos. 3 to 6 in the complaint, which establishes a domestic relationship with the Petitioner, therefore, Respondent nos. 3 to 6 ought to have been summoned and not deleted from the array of the parties. Arguments of the Respondent nos. 2 to 6 8. Leaned counsel for Respondent nos. 3 to 6 stated that the allegations made by the Petitioner in the complaint are false and frivolous and in the facts of this case the Trial Court has rightly deleted Respondent nos. 3 to 6 from the array of the parties. 8.1. He stated that the Respondent No. 4 [Father-in-law, Late Kishore Gandhi] had died on 10.02.2024. Further Respondent No. 3 [Mother-in-law, Mrs. Manju Gandhi] is on death bed. And Respondent No. 5 and 6 [brother- in-law and his wife] never lived with Petitioner or Respondent No.2 [Sumit 1 (2022) 8 SCC 90 at para 60 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:03.07.2025 16:26:47 CRL.M.C. 1916/2025 Gandhi i.e. husband] and had separate floor with separate kitchen from the very beginning, therefore, since the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 were residing separately and established a separate household, thus, the said Respondent nos. 3 to 6 cannot be said to have a domestic relationship as per the DV act. 8.2. He stated that there are two concurrent decisions of the Trial Court and Appellate Court. He stated that no perversity, arbitrariness or abuse of legal process has been demonstrated by the Petitioner herein for this Court to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 8.3. He stated that presently in compliance of the order dated 08.12.2023 passed by the Family Court, Respondent no. 2/husband, is paying Rs. 20,000/- per month as ad-interim maintenance, though, the final amount which shall be payable would not even be Rs.8000/- per month considering the income/expenditure of Respondent no. 2. 8.4. He stated that Respondent nos. 5 and 6 have no concern with the Petitioner and Respondent no. 2 and no specific allegations appear in the complaint against Respondent nos. 5 and 6. Findings and Analysis 9. This Court has heard the submissions of the parties and perused the record. 10. In view of the death of Respondent No. 4 on 10.02.2024, the relief sought in the present petition does not survive qua Respondent No. 4. As a matter of fact, the Petitioner did not file any application to bring this fact on record and therefore, this petition even otherwise has been abated qua Respondent No. 4. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:03.07.2025 16:26:47 CRL.M.C. 1916/2025

11. The Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 10.07.2023 recorded the following reasons for upholding the decision passed by the Trial Court in regard to non-summoning and deletion of Respondent Nos. 3 to 6:- “15. None of the reliefs sought by the appellant is directed against the respondent no. 3 to 6 except for restraining them from committing domestic violence and claiming compensation from them.

16. From the pleadings of appellant it is evident that she is residing separately from respondents no. 3 to 6 since 2013 and after 2020 she has even shifted to some other place. Relief sought by the appellant is not in respect of shared household rather appellant has restricted her claim to an alternate accommodation therefore, in my humble view case law relied by appellant as settled in “Prabha Tyagi Vs. Kamlesh Devi” (Supra) is not applicable to facts of case. …….

18. As held in the above stated judgment, the relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime is made out.

19. In the present case, allegations made in the complaint are mostly directed against husband of appellant. It is evident that since 2013, appellant started residing separately with her husband (respondent no. 2) and they have established separate household. No specific allegation is appearing in the complaint against respondents no. 5 & 6. No complaint has been made by appellant against respondents no. 3 to 6 during twenty one years of matrimonial life and since respondents no. 3 to 6 are residing separately there is no threat to appellant for any kind of domestic violence from them. Hence, Ld. Trial Court has taken a right view in deleting respondents no. 3 to 6 from the array of parties.” (Emphasis supplied)

12. Impugned order(s) have been challenged by the Petitioner on the ground that there was a domestic relationship in the past between Petitioner and Respondent nos. 3 to 6, since she resided with them in a shared household Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:03.07.2025 16:26:47 CRL.M.C. 1916/2025 until 2013 and Respondent nos. 3 to 6 used to inflict domestic violence upon her by provoking husband/Respondent No.2 or by failing to stop him. 13. Before adverting to the facts of the present case it would be imperative to record the scope of interference under Section 482 CrPC. The scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is to prevent abuse of the process of Court and to secure the ends of justice. It is trite law that such inherent power is to be exercised sparingly and not upon a re-appreciation of materials which have already been considered by the Trial Court and Appellate Court. (Re: State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy2; Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh3 and Bharti Anand v. Sushant Anand and Others4). 14. A perusal of the complaint dated 11.11.2022 shows that the allegations of harassment and violence enlisting specific incidents have been made substantially against Respondent no. 2/husband. Although the complaint contains allegations of taunts and demands for gifts against Respondent nos. 3 and 4 (who is since deceased), however, as far as the living arrangement is concerned it is the admitted case of the complainant herself that she had established a separate household with Respondent No.2 and has been residing in a distinct floor in the East Azad Nagar property since 2013 separate from Respondent nos. 3 to 6. The Petitioner also admits that in fact after 2020 she has even shifted out to a separate flat in a distinct building with Respondent no. 2/husband in a separate household.