Vijita Salotra Kumar vs Neha Malviya and others

The petitioner Vijita Salotra has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the entire criminal proceeding of M.J.C. No. 12/2013,

pending before learned J.M.F.C., Jabalpur, for the offence under Sections 19 and 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

(for brevity ‘PWDV Act, 2005).

Bereft of the unnecessary details, the facts requisite for disposal of this petition are that, respondent no.1 Neha Malviya married to Dhruv Salotra

on 18.11.2010 by observing Hindu Rites. Two-four days after the marriage, the complainant Neha was harassed by her husband Dhruva, mother-in-

law, father-in-law, uncle-in-law, sister-in-law Vijita Salotra (petitioner) and Vichitra, for demand of Rs.25 lakh for purchasing a house at London and a

luxury car, as dowry. When Neha opposed the same she was subjected to harassment and cruelty.

On 23.11.2010, the husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-laws and uncle-in-law said to Neha that she should bring Rs.25 lakhs from her

parents and a luxury car. When she refused all the members of her in-laws family, beaten her. She narrated the incident to her mother that if she

failed to bring Rs.25 lakhs, she would not be allowed to go to London along with her husband. Therefore, mother of Neha gave Rs.10 lakh to the

accused persons.

On 8th March, 2011, mother-in-law and father-in-law of Neha had gone to London. Her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law again demanded

dowry. When Neha opposed, she was again beaten. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law said that if she is not fulfill the demand of her husband

Dhruv, she will be treated similarly till fulfillment of the demand. Neha refused to cook non-veg food. Mother-in-law of Neha burnt her hand by means

of hot jhara taken out from hot oil. Neha got burn injuries on her hand and informed the same to her mother.

On 07.07.2011, complainant Neha and her husband Dhruva had come to Chennai, to attend the marriage of cousin sister of Dhruv. Dhruv

consumed alcohol heavily and taunted Neha that ‘in the marriages of his family crores of rupees are spent’, your parents had no guts to spend

like this and beaten Neha.

On 13.07.2011, Dhruv and Neha went to the house of Dhruv’s elder sister at Bagdogra Siliguri. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law had also

gone there. They demanded Rs.15 lakhs and a costly sari. They threatened that if the demand is not fulfilled, Neha will not be allowed to accompany

Dhruv to London.

On 15.07.2011, Neha and Dhruv came to Delhi from Bagdogra. Dhruv again was drunk and caused injuries to Neha. Dhruv’s parents also

inflicted injuries to Neha and threatened her not to make any complaint to anyone, otherwise, she will be divorced and killed because of fear, Neha

could not lodge any report.

On 17.03.2013, all the family members including Neha, Dhruv, Dhruv’s parents, uncle-in-law and Dhruv’s sisters had gone to the house of

Roop Malhotra a distance relative of Dhruv for lunch, there also Neha was again subjected to cruelty and father-in-law of Neha was in drunken

stage.

On 20.03.2013, Dhruv, his parents and the sister-in-laws came to Jabalpur and stayed overnight, they again demanded Rs.15 lakhs in cash and a

luxury car. On 07.05.2013, Neha was taken to London by Dhruv after several requests and pleadings by the family members of Neha. Neha was

subjected to cruelty at London, she received internal injuries.

Dhruv obtained a decree of divorce from the Court at London and also floated an advertisement for marriage, which clearly indicates that Neha is

being cheated and Dhruv had proposed to marry elsewhere, in the lifetime of his wife Neha, without having any valid decree of divorce. Whenever

there happened any incident, Neha used to inform her mother Smt. Shobha Malviya because of such incidents her parents and relatives became sad.

From July, 2011 to February, 2013 Dhruv subjected Neha to cruelty and demanded the amount. Neha was mentally and physically harassed.

Dhruv was earning 5 to 6 Lakhs rupees every month and Neha was deprived of maintenance, therefore, Neha pleaded to provide one lakh rupee per

month as maintenance. On 20.02.2012 Dhruv came to Jabalpur and brought chicken with him, Neha was asked to cook the non-veg food. She refused

to do so. In presence of Neha’s parents’, Dhruv beaten her. Parents of Dhruv were also present at that time. Instead of doing anything,

parents of Dhruv insisted for fulfilling the demand.

Alleging this mother of Neha Smt. Shobha Malviya filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act seeking relief under

Sections 19 and 20 of the PWDV Act, 2005.

Learned J.M.F.C., Jabalpur registered the case on 06.08.2013, after receiving the report from the Protection Officer, order dated 13.09.2013 has

been passed by the learned J.M.F.C. stating that complainant Neha is resident of Jabalpur, though she is not living at present. In her complaint, she

mentioned her residential address at Jabalpur. Though, she had gone to London and Delhi where the domestic violence allegedly occurred, but being a

resident of Jabalpur the Court at Jabalpur has jurisdiction to try the case.

On behalf of the petitioner Vijita Salotra, it is argued that she is a distance cousin of Dhruv Salotra and therefore, she does not fall within the

category of domestic relationship. It is contended that domestic relationship as defined in Section 2(f) of PWDV Act, 2005 means a relationship

between two persons 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.

It is also contended that, neither she belongs to family of Dhruv nor they are in joint family. She is the cousin sister of Dhruv, therefore, she is not

a member of joint family, hence, she does not fall into the meaning of “domestic relationshipâ€. It is also contended that applicant Shobha Malviya

mother of Neha Malviya has filed present petition under Sections 19 and 20 of PWDV Act, 2005. It is also contended that ‘aggrieved person’

as per the definition of Section 2(1) of PWDV Act, 2005 means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and

who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent. It is also contended that the petitioner is being the cousin sister

of the husband of the complainant and no relief has been sought against the petitioner, therefore, petitioner be relieved from the case registered against

her under the PWDV Act.

It is contended that Shobha Malviya is not authorized to file this complaint as she is not aggrieved person. In this context, counsel for the

respondent argued that Shobha Malviya being the mother of the complainant is entitled to file the complaint. Under sub-section (1) of the Section 12 of

PWDV Act, 2005 an “aggrieved person†or a “Protection Officer†or “any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person†may present

an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act.

The complainant Neha has filed this complaint through her mother Shobha Malviya, therefore, she falls in the category of “any other person on

behalf of the aggrieved personâ€​ and therefore, the complaint cannot be said to be not maintainable.

It is also contended that decree of divorce has been passed against the complainant in the Court at London; therefore, application for domestic

violence has been filed to wreck vengeance against the petitioner. No case is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner Vijita Salhotra is a

married woman, residing at United States of America in the 2000. She has been roped in this case by the respondent with sole intention to harass her

and the entire family. Petitioner has never resided with complainant Neha and her husband Dhruv Salotra. Therefore, allegations made against her is

baseless and absolutely false. There is marital discord between the complainant and her husband. The complainant has unnecessarily roped in the

present petitioner, who is a distant relative of Dhruv, because of the matrimonial dispute the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The

petitioner has right to be protected from the unnecessary ordeal of stringent trial based on false and frivolous allegations. The petitioner has not

concerned with the dispute between the complainant and her husband Dhruv Salotra.

Referring the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2012) 10 SCC 741, it is pleaded that petitioner has

been involved in the domestic quarrel between the husband and wife unnecessarily.

Per contra, it is alleged that it is the petitioner who instigated Dhruv Salotra to demand the dowry and to treat the complainant with cruelty. On

perusal of the record, it is seen that the petitioner has been shown to have beaten the complainant along with the in-laws of the complainant.

It is unlikely that the petitioner who is the cousin sister of Dhruv would have demand and treat the complainant with the cruelty.

Keeping in view that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) and Preeti Guta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and

another (2010) 7 SCC 667, it would be appropriate to mention here that there has been a trend to involve the family members of the husband, who are

residing separately and have never visited or seldom visited the house of the husband of the complainant are dragged in to wreck vengeance. Name of

the petitioner has been twice referred in the complaint, but only for omnibus allegation.

So far as the jurisdiction is concerned, the complainant pray that the Court at Jabalpur has jurisdiction to try the offence because the complainant is

resident of Jabalpur, she was residing at Jabalpur. Her passport indicates her permanent address at Jabalpur. Aggrieved person temporarily resided at

Jabalpur. Hence, under Section 27 of the PWDV Act, the Court at Jabalpur has jurisdiction. On perusal of Section 27 of PWDV Act, it is found that

the J.M.F.C within the local limits of which â€

(a) the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed; or

(b) the respondent resides or carries on business or is employed; or

(c) the cause of action has arisen, shall be the competent Court to grant a protection order and other orders under this Act and to try offences under

this Act.

The complainant is not residing at Jabalpur. She might have resided at Jabalpur, earlier to her marriage. She did not claim that the respondent is

residing at Jabalpur. The cause of action shown in the complaint is also seemed to be at other places, but not at Jabalpur.

As per complainant, she visited Delhi occasionally and her household was at London where she was residing with her husband Dhruv. Petitioner

Vijita Salotra is neither shared the household with the complainant and her husband, nor in domestic relationship, for she lives separately with her

family, as prior to the marriage of the complainant with Dhurv her marriage was performed.

Referring to the case of S.R. Batra vs. Taruna Batra (2007) 3 SCC 169, it is pleaded by the petitioner that when they are living separately then

they are not a family but they are relatives, it is also pertinent to note that casual visits of a daughter-in-law to the house of father-in-law will not

amount to living or lived together in a shared household for the purpose of domestic relationship. It is an admitted fact that after the marriage of

complainant Neha lived at United Kingdom with her husband Dhruv and visited Delhi occasionally. Such stay can, by no stretch of imagination, fall

within the meaning of domestic relationship or shared household as mentioned.

Considering the submissions, led by the petitioner the respondent has submitted that twice the petitioner has committed domestic violence as has

been alleged in the complaint, but prima facie there is no evidence to show that the petitioner Vijita Salotra was living at any time in the common

household of the complainant or her husband.

It is also alleged by the counsel of the petitioner that, there are patent errors and material irregularities committed by the trial Court. The petitioner

contended that her matrimonial home was in London, Neha never came to Jabalpur after dispute arose between the parties. Neha resided in the

United Kingdom. Even now her mother Shobha Malviya has filed this petition but the detail of Neha has not been shown in the record. It is also

claimed that Neha is not pursing the matter, but is contested by her mother. Neha lived for handful number of days in India during her stay at India she

did not make any complaint. The application has been filed with ulterior motive to implicate the petitioner. Neha having no intention to come back to

India as is obtaining the status of permanent resident at U.K. complainant Neha has filed this complaint absolutely false and frivolous. The order

impugned passed by learned J.M.F.C. dated 10.02.2015 suffers from patent error in the background of the present case.

In this regard, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the relief cannot be granted under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the offence under

Section 31 of PWDV Act. In this regard, he referred to the case of Manges Sawant vs. Minal Vijay Bhosal decided on 05.04.2011 passed by the

Single Bench of High Court Mumbai in Criminal Petition No.905/2010, wherein the Court has held that Provision of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be

invoked to quash the proceedings of application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act.

In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. and others vs. State of

Maharashtra and another (2009) 2 SCC 370, wherein it has been held that :-

“Inherent power of High Court is not conferred by statute but has merely been saved thereunder.â€​

Also placed reliance in the case of Prabhu Chawla vs State of Rajasthan and another (2016) 16 SCC 30, wherein the Apex Court has been held

that :-

“Provision of Sections 482 and 397 of the Cr.P.C.- there is no total ban on exercise of inherent power, where abuse of process of Court or other

extraordinary situation warrants exercise of inherent jurisdiction. The limitation is self-restraint, nothing more. Availability of alternative remedy of

criminal revision under Section 397 by itself cannot be a good ground to dismiss an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Since Section 397 is

attracted against all order other than interlocutory, a contrary view would limit the availability of inherent powers under Section 482 only to petty

interlocutory order, which situation is wholly unwarranted and undesirable.â€​

Referring to the case of Ashish Dixit and others vs. State of U.P. and another (2013) 4 SCC 176, the Apex Court decision quashing the

proceeding under Section 12 of PWDV Act, it is contended that :-

“The High Court at Allahabad refused to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners by the complainant-respondent no.2 (wife), under

Section 12 of the PWDV Act, 2005.â€​

“The Apex Court has also held that the High Court at least should have directed that the petition filed by the complainant be confined to her

husband as also her parents-in-law and should not have allowed the impleadment of other respondents. The Apex Court quashed the proceeding

against the other respondents.â€​

Considering the above circumstances and the legal aspects, this Court is of the opinion that, the petitioner seems to have been unnecessarily

impleaded as a party without ascertaining her specific role in the so-called domestic violence having few omnibus allegations, therefore, this Court

deems it fit to allow this petition.

This petition is allowed. The entire criminal proceedings of M.J.C. No. 12/2013 so far as the petitioner Vijita Salotra is concerned are hereby

quashed.