Bawinder Verma vs Richa Sharma

H.S. Madaan, J

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioner â€" Bawinder Verma seeking quashing of the criminal complaint bearing

No.486/2013 dated 21.8.2013 titled as “Richa Sharma through her attorney Sh.A.K. Sharma Versus Tarun Verma and othersâ€, pending in the

Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula filed under Sections 12, 18, 19, 22, 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

(hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the complainant Richa Sharma had filed a petition under Sections 12, 18, 19, 22 and 23 of the Act against her

husband - Tarun Verma, father-in-law â€" Suraj Parkash Verma, mother-in-law - Sarlesh Verma and brother-in-law Bawinder Verma. That petition

was filed by her through her father and attorney Col.A.K. Sharma (Retd.). In the petition the complainant has contended that she was married with

Tarun Verma on 12.11.2010 at Panchkula; that she was treated by respondents with cruelty during her stay in the matrimonial home and at various

other places; that she was harassed and tortured on account of dowry demands despite the fact that the complainant had already paid her entire

saving amount i.e. the amount saved from her salary after marriage to respondents and her parents had spent a lot of money at the time of her

marriage giving considerable gifts. In the petition several incidents of alleged cruelty perpetrated upon her by respondents/accused have been

mentioned. The respondents were summoned, who put in appearance.

An application for dismissal of the petition was filed by the respondents challenging the jurisdiction of the Court at Panchkula to entertain the petition

stating that after marriage at Panchkula, the parties had started residing at Patiala, where they stayed for two weeks and thereafter went to Banglore,

where both of them were working with a multinational company; that no incident of domestic violence took place; that as a matter of fact the parties

have never resided together at Panchkula even for a single day. This application was contested by the complainant stating that she works at

Bangalore but her permanent address is of Panchkula, therefore, she had filed the petition there; that the incidents of domestic violence against her

were so cruel that she faced extreme mental anguish and agony, therefore, the Court at Panckula had jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition. The

application of the respondents was dismissed.

Notice of the petition was issued to respondent, who put in appearance through counsel.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going through the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is brother-in-law (sister's husband of Tarun Verma); that there was no occasion for

the petitioner to interfere in the matrimonial life of the complainant and Tarun Verma and she has wrongly dragged the petitioner in such litigation; that

as a matter of fact, the marriage between Tarun Verma and Richa Sharma was second marriage for both of them, which was performed in a very

simple manner and there could not be any demand of dowry; that after marriage the new wedded couple went to Malaysia on 15.11.2010 and then to

Banglore on 26.11.2010 since Tarun Verma was employed in Banglore as a Software Engineer there; that Richa Sharma would however, pick up

quarrels with her husband without any rhyme and reason on petty matters; that fed up with such behaviour of Richa Sharma, Tarun Verma had

informed her parents in that regard, who gave an assurance that their daughter would not repeat any mistake in future; that the complaint by her is

gross abuse of process of law. The impugned order passed has no legs to stand.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the present petitioner has also joined his in-laws family in harassing and

torturing the complainant. He is equally guilty and cannot get the complaint/petition quashed.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I find that the present complaint against the petitioner is nothing but an

abuse of process of law. The main thrust of allegations by the complainant is against her husband - Tarun Verma, father-in-law - Suraj Parkash

Verma and mother-in-law - Sarlesh Verma. A perusal of the judgment dated 22.3.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula goes to

show that the said petition has since been dismissed against respondents No.1 and 3 with costs, whereas since proceedings qua Bawinder Verma had

been stayed, no order has been passed in that regard. In the judgment, the reasons given by the trial Magistrate for dismissing the petition with costs

are mainly as under:

(i) Though the petitioner had alleged that she was assaulted by respondents but no medical or other evidence in that regard was produced on record by

the petitioner except her statement appearing as CW1.

(ii)No incident of alleged assault was either noticed by any neighbour of the petitioner and no such neighbour was examined by the petitioner.

(iii)Though the petitioner had alleged that a sum of Rs.10,75,000/- was withdrawn by respondent No.1 after taking ATM card of petitioner for

purchase of flat at Banglore but she had failed to lead evidence to prove that fact and hand written details of the amount cannot lead to an inference

that said amount was withdrawn from the account of the petitioner that too by respondent No.1. Even otherwise by providing monetary help to her

husband to purchase an accommodation/house does not fall within the ambit of demand of dowry.

(iv)Failure of the petitioner to prove allegations of cruelty against her husband.

(v)Admission of petitioner that she herself had left the company of her husband to attend her job at Hyderabad.

(vi)There being no evidence on record that any of respondents used any force or assaulted the petitioner at any point of time.

(vii)The record showing that the petitioner had rather committed cruelty upon the respondent, when she levelled allegations against her husband that

his cousin sister liked him and she wants to make affair with him.

(viii)There being nothing on record to show that any domestic violence was committed upon the petitioner, rather it being a case of temperamental

differences between the petitioner and respondent No.1.

(ix)Failure of the petitioner to prove incident of any type of cruelty committed upon her by any of respondents during her stay in the matrimonial home

and rather it being a case of failure of marriage.

Now coming to the present petition filed by petitioner â€" Bawinder Verma, he being not an immediate member of the family could not possibly be

taken to be present in the matrimonial home of complainant and her husband at most of the times, rather he is shown to be residing separately at

Chandigarh along with his family. There are no specific allegations against such petitioner in the petition under Domestic Violence Act. There could

not be any occasion of his committing any cruelty upon the complainant raising demand of any dowry etc. or subjecting her to domestic violence.

After the marriage, the complainant and her husband had been residing at Banglore for most of the time. The allegations qua the petitioner in the FIR

are as under:

That as the cruel behaviour of the respondents No.1 to 3 against the applicant/complainant was increasing day by day and was becoming from bad to

words, feeling worried and apprehensive, the parents of the applicant/complainant, contacted Mr. Bawinder Verma, respondent No.4, who offered to

accompany them to Bangalore so as to discuss the whole matter with the respondent No.1 to 3, accordingly, in the 3rd week of May, 2013, the

parents of applicant/ complainant and Mr. Bawinder Verma i.e. respondent No.4 (Jija of respondent No.1) came to Bangalore and met respondent

No.1 to 3. It is added here that the expenditure qua the purchase of air tickets of Mr. Bawinder Verma were met by the parents of the

applicant/complainant. However, after reaching Bangalore Mr. Bawinder Verma/respondent No.4, revealed his two colors as he immediately started

signing the tune of the respondent No.1 to 3 and it became apparent that he was also hand in glove with the respondent No.1 to 3 as during the

discussions, he repeatedly tried to demoralize and down grade the applicant/ complainant and her parents. He without any heed to the requests of the

applicant/ complainant and her parents, even declared that the applicant/ complainant and respondent No.1 would show their accounts to each other

and shall maintain complete transparency and the applicant/ complainant would also share 50% of the house hold expenditure besides the payments of

EMIs and prepayments the above said flat. To bring harmony and peace, the applicant/ complainant and her parents agreed to the above said

declaration. However, after the departure of parents of the applicant/ complainant, respondent No.1 backed out of the above said decision and refused

to show the loan account etc., rather he vigorously started demanding money from the applicant/ complainant on the pretext of prepayment of the loan

of the flat. The applicant/ complainant refused to share her money unless the accounts were shown to her.

That on 05.06.2013, respondent No.1 rang up respondent No.4 and complained against applicant/ complainant. The respondent No.1 put the phone on

the speaker mode and the respondent No.4 shouted at the applicant/ complainant and directed her to give all her money to the respondent No.1 to 3.

He back tracked from his earlier stand and further told the applicant/ complainant that the loan account will not be shown to her under any

circumstances and she should forget about any transparency in the accounts of the respondent No.1. When applicant/ complainant refused to part

with the money unless there is transparency in the accounts qua the payments towards the installments of flat, respondent No.4 gave green signal to

respondent No.1 and stated that the applicant/ complainant is not worth living in their family and respondent No.1 should go ahead with his plans.

Thereafter, the applicant/ complainant remained under constant fear and apprehension regarding her life and remained guessing that what green signal

was given to respondent No.1. The said fear and apprehension exists in the mind of the applicant/ complainant till today.

These allegations even if taken as such are not only highly unconvincing and improbable but do not constitute any domestic violence. The trial

Magistrate in his judgment has referred to Loha Vs. Disstrict Educational Officer, Sriviliputhoor Virudhunagar, District W.P.(MP) No.8646 of 2015,

decided on 8.6.2015 in which it has been observed that that Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, suffers from inherent flows

which tempt women to misuse their provisions and men to dread being prosecuted under law without any rhyme or reason. Court observed that the

notable flow in this law is that it lends itself to such lasy misuse that women will find it hard to resist the temptation to teach lesson to their male

relatives and will file frivolous and false cases.

This appears to be so in the present case. With such type of allegations against the petitioner even if he faces the trial, the same is not likely to result

in his conviction. The trial will result in only wasting valuable time of the Court when the main accused have been acquitted. There is least possibility

of conviction of the petitioner when the allegations against him are being general, vague and sweeping type. Even prima facie it does not make the

case of domestic violence. Domestic violence defined under Section 3 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Therefore, the petition is accepted and the complaint along with ancillary proceedings qua the petitioner is ordered to be quashed.