Criminal Misc. No. M-26756 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-26756 of 2009 Date of Decision: 06.05.2010 1. Satyapal Katyal son of Sh. Tikaya Ram; 2. Parmod Katyal son of Sh. Satyapal Katyal; both residents of H. No. 184, Sector 8, Faridabad. ... Petitioners Versus Shalini Katyal wife of Sh. Pankaj Katyal, d/o Sh. Chander Prakash Chopra, resident of H. No. 815, Sector 17, Faridabad. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Gourav Kataria, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the respondent. SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the order dated 03.08.09 (Annexure P7), passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad, vide which, the application of the petitioners, for discharging them, in Criminal Complaint No. 8 dated 02.04.07, under Section 12(i), 17, 18 & 19 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Annexure P1), was dismissed, has been filed by them (petitioners). 2. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone Criminal Misc. No. M-26756 of 2009 2 through the documents, on record, carefully. 3. The Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that, the Protection Officer, who was appointed, by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad, came to the conclusion, that it was only the husband i.e. Pankaj Katyal, who allegedly caused domestic violence. He further submitted that, the petitioners, then filed an application, for discharging them, in the complaint, on the basis of report of the Protection Officer dated 09.06.08. He further submitted that the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad, was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that no ground, was made out, for discharging the petitioners. He further submitted that, the allegations, in the complaint, had been levelled, by the complainant, against the petitioners, to wreck vengeance and with malafide intention. He further submitted that the order impugned, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that, earlier a petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the criminal complaint, in which, the order impugned, was passed, was filed, by the petitioners alongwith their co-petitioners. He further submitted that the said petition, was dismissed, by this Court, vide order dated 26.09.07. He further submitted that, in the face of the order dated 26.09.07, passed by this Court, declining the quashing of the complaint, on the ground, that the ingredients, required for constituting the offence, were disclosed, from the allegations, contained therein, no fresh petition, under Section 482 Criminal Misc. No. M-26756 of 2009 3 Cr.P.C., is maintainable. He further submitted that the order, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 5. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the petition, is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. As stated above, earlier Criminal Misc. No. 32874-M of 2007, for quashing complaint, was filed, by the petitioners and their co-petitioners, which was dismissed, on 26.09.07, by this Court, on the ground, that the ingredients, contained therein, disclosed the acts of domestic violence, on the part of all the petitioners. When the bare allegations, contained in the complaint, disclosed the commission of acts of domestic violence, then by, no stretch of imagination, it could be said, that the order P7, dismissing the application of the petitioners, by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad, declining to discharge them, was in any way illegal. It is further evident, from the allegations, contained in the petition, that a Special Leave Petition, was also filed, by the petitioners, in the Apex Court, against the order dated 26.09.07, passed by this Court, which too was dismissed. The order impugned, therefore, being legal and valid, especially, in the face of the order dated 26.09.07, passed by this Court, in Criminal Misc. No. 32874- M of 2007, is not liable to be set aside. 6. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M-26756 of 2009, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be Criminal Misc. No. M-26756 of 2009 4 taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 7. Registry is directed, to comply with the order, by sending the copies thereof, to the Courts concerned. 06.05.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE