Criminal Petition No. 6740 of 2023 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6165 CRL.P No. 6740 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6740 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: 1. MR. APARMAYA SHUKLA, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O DR. SUSHIL KUMAR SHUKLA, NO. 534, RAINDROPS APARTMENTS, HARALUR ROAD, AMBALIPURA , BANGALORE - 560100 2. MR. ANOOP SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O SUSHIL KUMAR SHUKLA, R/O FLAT NO. 534, RAINDROPS APARTMENTS, HARALUR ROAD, AMBALIPURA , BANGALORE - 560100 3. DR. SUSHIL KUMAR SHUKLA AGED 70 YEARS S/O PANDITH SHANTHI SWAROOP SHUKLA R/O FLAT NO. 534, RAINDROPS APARTMENTS, HARALUR ROAD, AMBALIPURA, BANGALORE - 560100 4. DR. CHITWAN DUBEY AGED 49 YEARS, D/O MAJOR ONKARNATH DUBEY (RETD.), DR.L.H. HIRANANDANI HOSPITAL, HILL SIDE ROAD, HIRANANDANI GARDEN, RAMABAI AMBEDKAR NAGAR, POWAI, MUMBAI - 400076, MAHARASHTRA (BY SRI. A. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6165 CRL.P No. 6740 of 2023 AND: MRS. GARIMA MISHRA, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O APARMAYA SHUKLA,, D/O ASHOK MISHRA, PRESENTLY R/AT FLAT E5- 903, SNN RAJ GREENBAY APARTMENTS, ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE - 2 BENGALURU - 560100
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. OMRAN GULAM AHMED KHAN, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRL.MISC.NO.1271/2022 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION 12(1),18 TO 20 OF THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs: “For the foregoing reasons, the petitioners pray that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the entire proceedings in Crl.MiscNo.1271/2022 registered by the Respondent on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural, Bangalore, against the petitioners under Sections 12(1), 18 to 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and grant such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant, in the ends of equity and justice.” - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6165 CRL.P No. 6740 of 2023 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that petitioner No.1 is the husband of the respondent – wife. Petitioner No.2 is the brother of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.3 is the father of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and petitioner No.4 is the cousin sister of petitioner No.1. The marriage between the respondent and petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 27.02.2009 and daughter viz., Saanvika Shukla was born from out of the wedlock on 28.09.2020. It is an undisputed fact as evident from the material on record that between petitioner No.1 and respondent, there are several other matrimonial proceedings including G & WC No.25/2021 and M.C.No.431/2022 (re-numbered as M.C.1/2024), which are pending before the jurisdictional Courts. It is also an undisputed fact that there are certain orders regarding custody, visitation etc., which are passed in the said proceedings between petitioner No.1 and the respondent. 4. The respondent instituted the present proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.1271/2022 under the provisions of Prevention of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6165 CRL.P No. 6740 of 2023 Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against the petitioners herein seeking following reliefs: a. Direct the Respondents to refrain himself from causing any domestic violence, stalking, giving threats on phone, sending obnoxious mails, messages, visiting working place and House of the Complainant to the Complainant U/s 18 of the Act; b. Direct the Respondents not to dispossess the complainant and her minor girl child from the shared house hold premises and not to alienate or dispose off the household premises; c. Direct the Respondent to pay the maintenance and arrears of the society/flat; d. Direct the Respondent to pay Rs.40,000/- per month for the maintenance of the minor child and repayment of Rs.10 Lakhs taken by the Respondent No.1 for the Complainant U/s. 20 of the D.V. Act; e. Direct the Respodnent to pay Rs.50,000/- per month as maintenance to the Complainant for her basic requirements as per the financial status of the Respondent as the income of the complainant is much less than the earnings and the respondent No.1 is earning more than Rs.2.50 Lacs per month and has assets worth Rs.5 crores approximately; f. Direct the Respondent to pay Rs.20,00,000/- as monetary relief to the Complainant U/s. 20 of the D.V. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6165 CRL.P No. 6740 of 2023 Act as specified in the Clause (iii) i.e., loss of earnings and medical expenses etc.; g. Direct the Respondent to pay Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation to the Complainant U/s. 22 of the Act for physical, emotional and mental torture cause by the Respondent; h. Pass such other or orders/other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the given facts and circumstances of the case for protecting the aggrieved person from domestic violence and in the interest of justice.” 5. A perusal of the averments/allegations etc., as well as the reliefs sought for by the respondent in the said petition will clearly indicate that the same are directly mainly/primarily only against petitioner No.1-husband and not as against petitioner Nos.2 to 4, who are brother, father and cousin sister of petitioner No.1. The said allegations also relate to the premises in which the respondent is presently staying and the petitioner do not dispute the said submission made on behalf of the respondent that the respondent is residing in the said premises as on today. However, in this context, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said premises is owned and possessed by petitioner No.1. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6165 CRL.P No. 6740 of 2023 6. Though several allegations/contentions have been made by the respondent and petitioners against each other, a careful reading of the averments and allegations made in the petition in Crl.Misc.No.1271/2022 will indicate that merely vague, bald and omnibus allegations are made against all the remaining petitioners other than petitioner No.1. Under identical circumstances, the Apex Court in the case of Geddam Jhansi Vs. the State of Telangana and another – 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263, it is held as under: “31. Invoking criminal process is a serious matter with penal consequences involving coercive measures, which can be permitted only when specific act(s) which constitute offences punishable under the penal code or any other penal statute are alleged or attributed to the accused and a prima facie case is made out. It applies with equal force when criminal laws are invoked in domestic disputes. Criminalising domestic disputes without specific allegations and credible materials to support the same may have disastrous consequences for the institution of family, which is built on the premise of love, affection, cordiality and mutual trust. Institution of family constitutes the core of human society. Domestic relationships, such as those between family members, are guided by deeply ingrained social values and cultural expectations. These relationships are often viewed as sacred, demanding a higher level of respect, commitment, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6165 CRL.P No. 6740 of 2023 and emotional investment compared to other social or professional associations. For the aforesaid reason, preservation of family relationship has always been emphasised upon. Thus, when family relationships are sought to be brought within the ambit of criminal proceedings rupturing the family bond, courts should be circumspect and judicious, and should allow invocation of criminal process only when there are specific allegations with supporting materials which clearly constitute criminal offences. 32. We have to keep in mind that in the context of matrimonial disputes, emotions run high, and as such in the complaints filed alleging harassment or domestic violence, there may be a tendency to implicate other members of the family who do not come to the rescue of the complainant or remain mute spectators to any alleged incident of harassment, which in our view cannot by itself constitute a criminal act without there being specific acts attributed to them. Further, when tempers run high and relationships turn bitter, there is also a propensity to exaggerate the allegations, which does not necessarily mean that such domestic disputes should be given the colour of criminality, 33. It goes without saying that genuine cases of cruelty and violence in domestic sphere, which do happen, ought to be handled with utmost sensitivity. Domestic violence typically happens within the four walls of the house and not in the public gaze. Therefore, such violence is not noticed by public at large, except perhaps by the immediate neighbours. Thus, providing visible evidence by the victim of domestic violence may not be easily forthcoming and producing direct - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6165 CRL.P No. 6740 of 2023 evidence may be hard and arduous, which does not necessarily mean that domestic violence does not occur. In fact, to deal with this pernicious phenomenon, stringent statutes like Protection from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, have been enacted with very expansive meaning and scope of what amounts to domestic violence. Since, violence perpetrated within the domestic sphere by close relatives is now criminalised entailing serious consequences on the perpetrators, the courts have to be careful while dealing with such cases by examining whether there are specific allegations with instances against the perpetrators and not generalised allegations. The purpose and mandate of the law to protect the victims of domestic violence is of paramount importance, and as such, a balance has to be struck by ensuring that while perpetrators are brought to book, all the family members or relatives are not indiscriminately brought within the criminal net in a sweeping manner.” 7. The Apex Court in the said case arising out of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in which allegations were primarily made against the husband and not against any other family members, held that without there being specific allegation nor sufficient material particulars or details would entail quashment of the said proceedings against the family members of the husband. Further, in the light of the specific submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6165 CRL.P No. 6740 of 2023 petitioner Nos.2 to 4 would not violate any provisions of the said Act of 2005, I am of the view that the impugned proceedings in so far as petitioner Nos.2 to 4 deserves to be quashed. 8.
Decision
In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned criminal proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.1271/2022, pending on the file of the Chief Judicial magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, only in so far as petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are concerned, are hereby quashed. (iii) The submission made by petitioner Nos.2 to 4 that they would not violate any of the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, is placed on record. (iv) It is made clear that petitioner No.1 and the respondent shall be entitled to their respective custody rights, visitation rights etc., as directed in the pending matrimonial/custody proceedings etc., and the present order would be without prejudice their rights and contentions in the said proceedings. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6165 CRL.P No. 6740 of 2023 (v) The Trial Court is directed to continue proceedings only as against petitioner No.1 and conclude the proceedings within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2