Naresh Kumar And Ors @APPELLANT@Hash Meenu Sharma

In the instant petition, the petitioners seeksquashment of the Complaint dated 30th August, 2017, filed by the respondent, namely, Meenu Sharma

under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, pending before the learned Munsiff, Sunderbani, whereby the learned Munsiff, Sunderbani has taken

the cognizance against the petitioners

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 and the respondent are hindu husband and wife. The marriage between both of

them was solemnized on 20th April, 2016. The respondent lived in the matrimonial house till 23rd September, 2016 and thereafter, left the company of

the petitioner No. 1 without any rhyme and reason. The petitioner No. 1, therefore, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against

the respondent before the JIMC, Sunderbani, which is still pending. The respondent has been served in that petition. She, however, chose not to

appear. Â

Learned counsel further submits that in order to counter that petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed by the petitioner No. 1

against the respondent and harass the petitioner, the respondent on 30th August, 2017 filed a false and frivolous petition under Section 12 of the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2010 against the petitioner No. 1 and all his family members, who are the petitioners in the instant

petition without any act or omission on their part and without showing any cause of action against the petitioners in her Complaint much less the

essentials to constitute the domestic violence under the Act. The Court below, i.e., the JMIC, Sunderbani also not only took the cognizance of the

complaint and issued summon to all the petitioners, but by its subsequent orders, has also treated the petitioners as accused persons and has directed

them to furnish bail bonds as if they were involved in any offence.Â

The petitioners are aggrieved of the aforesaid Complaint and challenge the same on the following grounds:-

(a) That the Complaint filed by the complainant (respondent herein) is just a counter to the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed by

the petitioner No. 1 at JMIC, Sunderbani.

(b) That the complainant lived in the matrimonial house till 23rd September, 2016 and she filed the petition on 30th August, 2017, so she kept silent for

11 months. The complaint is, therefore, false and filed only with an intention just to harass the petitioners and counter the petition, filed by the

petitioner No. 1, namely, Naresh Kumar (husband of the complainant). There are no material particulars of time and date in the complaint/petition.

(c) That the Court below has taken the cognizance against all the petitioners and has also directed them to furnish bail bonds, thereby treating them as

accused.

(d) That as per Rule 17 of the Domestic Violence Act, the procedure laid down under Section 488 Cr. P.C is to be followed in Domestic Violence

cases.

I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the certified copy of the aforesaid impugned Complaint,

annexed by the petitioners.

From the perusal of the aforesaid impugned Complaint, it is evident that a case for taking cognizance under Section 12 of the Protection of Women

from Domestic Violence Act, 2010 has been made out. All the grounds mentioned in the petition are pertaining to appreciation of facts and the facts

mentioned in the petition can be appreciated only by the Trial Court. It is not the case of the petitioners that there is some legal bar engrafted in any

law to take cognizance by the Court below. It is also not the case of the petitioners that the Trial Court was not competent to entertain the petition

or the Trial Court while issuing the process, has exceeded its jurisdiction. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in taking cognizance by the Court below

under Domestic Violence Act.

In the instant petition, the petitioners have also challenged the order dated 20th September, 2017, which reads as follows:-

“Complainant’s counsel present complainant also present.Â

Accused Nos. 2, 5 and 7 present. Advocate Sanjeev Sharma filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the accused persons 2, 5 and 7. They are directed

to furnish the bail bonds and personal bonds to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- each which are accepted and attested and made part of the file. C/Clerk is

directed to re-summon accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 6. Let the file come up on 18th October, 2017.â€​

It is true that the respondents cannot be directed to furnish bail bonds in a petition under Domestic Violence Act, but this irregularity can only be

cured by filing an application before the Magistrate. The petitioners are at liberty to move an application before the Court below.Â

In view of the above, the instant petition is found bereft of merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.