CRM No. M-25826 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-25826 of 2010 Date of Decision:06.12.2011 Ramesh Chand Aggarwal and others ........Petitioners Versus Hema ........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sunil K.S. Panwar, Advocate for the respondent. ***** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of complaint No.74 dated 16.01.2008 instituted by the respondent under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) alongwith all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom. During the course of hearing, counsel for the petitioners also prayed for setting-aside the order dated 18.02.2010 (Annexure P-7) passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon, vide which the application moved by the petitioners for dropping of proceedings against them in the light of the second marriage performed by her on 27.02.2009 stands dismissed. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that for the relief sought in the complaint, the complainant has already initiated civil litigation and suits are pending against petitioner No.1, where she is claiming share in the property owned by petitioner No.1, which is his self- CRM No. M-25826 of 2010 -2- acquired property and there is already a civil suit pending qua this property between the parties. His further contention is that the complainant having performed second marriage will not be covered by the claim made in the present complaint as she ceases to be an aggrieved person. His further contention is that petitioner Nos. 4 & 5 who are the daughter of Ramesh Chand Aggarwal-petitioner No.1 and her husband and are residing separately and have been arrayed as respondents with a malafide intention without there being any involvement of these two petitioners in the domestic life of the petitioners and respondent. He accordingly prays that the present petition be allowed by setting aside of the order dated 18.02.2010 (Annexure P-7). On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submits that merely because of civil litigation which is pending that would not bar the claim made by the complainant under the Act. In this regard, reference has been made by him to Section 36 of the Act. His further contention is that the factum that the petitioners No. 4 & 5 are residing separately from the other petitioners, is denied by the complainant/respondent in her reply and there is no evidence on record or proof that these two petitioners are residing separately. He contends that the husband of the complainant died on 31.10.2007 and the present complaint was initiated on 28.01.2008. From the said date till the date of re-marriage, they can not be absolved of their liability for the offence committed by them under the Act. His contention is that the application of the petitioners has rightly been dismissed by the District Judge, Family Court vide order dated 18.02.2010. He prays for dismissal of the present petition. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone the record of the case. Perusal of the complaint indicates that cause of action has arisen CRM No. M-25826 of 2010 -3- in favour of the complainant prima-facie to initiate the proceedings against the petitioners under the Act. The facts unvieling from the pleadings are that the petitioners and respondent were residing together in the matrimonial home, husband of the complainant died on 31.10.2007, it is after that the allegations have been made with regard to the complainant having been turned out of the house and non-payment of cash which was handed over by the husband of the complainant to petitioner No.2 who was brother of her husband and thereafter, she was threatened to be killed through unknown persons. Counsel for the respondent at this stage points out that the correct complaint has not been attached with the present petition (Annexure P-1) and infact the correct complaint is appended with the reply (Annexure R-1) wherein, apart from these three incidents, there are four other incidents which have not been mentioned in the complaint which included forcibly locking of the residence and accusations of threats, and forcibly entering the residence and throwing the house hold goods, physical violence sexual violence etc. All these shows that the complainant had a cause of action against the petitioners and therefore, had rightly initiated the proceedings against them. Re-marriage by the complainant on 27.02.2009 does not absolve the petitioners of the act and conduct which they had committed to the complainant and details of which have been mentioned in the complaint Rejection of the application by the trial Court vide order dated 18.02.2010 (Annexure P-7) is in accordance with law and therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners that petitioners Nos.4 & 5 were residing separately also can not accepted in the light of the dispute raised in this regard by the complainant in her reply to the petition. There being no evidence on record which would substantiate the CRM No. M-25826 of 2010 -4- contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that they were residing separately. In any case, in the light of the fact that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands as is apparent from the complaint, which has been correctly placed now on record as Annexure R-I by the respondent wherein, incidents of domestic violence have not been completely reproduced in the complaint by the petitioners thus having approached the Court with incomplete document, the equitable and discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can not be exercised against the petitioners. The present petition deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. 06.12.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) harjeet JUDGE