Crl.Misc.No.M-5543 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Misc.No. M-5543 of 2009 Date of decision: 17.11.2009 Amarjit Kaur and others ... Petitioners versus Neeraj Bala ... Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. None for the respondent. ... JORA SINGH, J. Amarjit Kaur and others filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint No.435 of 2007 titled as Neeraj Bala vs. Sanjeev Ahuja and others, pending in the Court of JMIC, Ludhiana, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short `the Act'), and summoning order dated 18.7.2007. Petitioners are closely related to Sanjeev Ahuja, husband of Neeraj Bala. Petitioner No.1 Amarjit Kaur is mother of Sanjeev Ahuja, whereas petitioners No.2 and 3 are sisters of Sanjeev Ahuja. Petitioners No.2 and 3 are married sisters-in-law of respondent Neeraj Bala. Respondent Neeraj Bala was married with Sanjeev Ahuja on 11.10.2000 and from this wedlock, there is a minor son. Behaviour of the respondent towards her in-laws was always disrespectful. Respondent used to threaten her in-laws to implicate them in a false case. Sanjeev Ahuja moved an application to SSP, Ludhiana, on 21.7.2004 to the effect that they are being harassed by Neeraj Bala. Respondent gave in writing that she will not threat her in-laws in future. Annexure P-1 is the undertaking given by Crl.Misc.No.M-5543 of 2009 2 the respondent, but later on, the respondent gave fresh complaint dated 11.4.2007 against her husband and other family members. Matter was sent to the Women Cell and the Women Cell after investigation found the allegation to be false. Annexure P-3 is the copy of the proceedings before the Women Cell. Feeling dissatisfied with the report of the Women Cell, respondent gave another complaint. Ultimately, FIR No.65 dated 29.7.2007 was registered under Sections 406/498-A IPC, Police Station Division No.3, Ludhiana, against Sanjeev Ahuja. Annexure P-3 is the copy of the FIR. There was an enquiry by the DIG, Ludhiana Range, as per the request of the respondent. But on enquiry, allegations of the respondent were found to be false one. Annexure P-4 is the copy of report of SP, Ludhiana. Crl.Misc.No.M-41433 of 2003 was instituted and father of the respondent appeared and made statement that her daughter is at fault. He further stated that there was no demand of dowry either by the husband or the petitioners. Annexure P-5 is the copy of affidavit of Joginder Lal, father of Neeraj Bala. During the pendency of FIR in question, Petition (Annexure P- 6) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was moved. Vide order dated 10.12.2008 (Annexure P-7), Sanjeev Ahuja was directed to pay interim maintenance @ Rs.2000/- per month. Respondent filed complaint (Annexure P-8) under Section 12 of the Act and vide order dated 18.7.2007 (Annexure P-9), petitioners were summoned without recording pre-summoning evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as per Section 2 (q) of the Act, complaint under Section 12 of the Act is not maintainable Crl.Misc.No.M-5543 of 2009 3 against the ladies. Before passing the summoning order, Magistrate was required to take into consideration any domestic incident report received from the Protection Officer or the service provider. No report of Protection Officer or the service provider. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on 2007(4) RCR (Crl.) 930, Ajay Kant and others vs. Smt. Alka Sharma. I have gone through the file and am of the opinion that submission of leaned counsel for the petitioner seems to be correct one. Present petition is on behalf of mother-in-law and sisters-in-law of respondent Neeraj Bala. Neeraj Bala was married to Sanjeev Ahuja on 11.10.2000. Respondent when threatened to implicate her in-laws, then Sanjeev Ahuja gave complaint to the SSP, Ludhiana. Annexure P-1 is the statement of Neeraj Bala to the effect that till date, whatever she did to threaten her in- laws she owns the responsibility of that. Her mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law are not responsible. Annexure P-2 is the report by Inspector Gurpreet Purewal to the effect that the allegations levelled by Neeraj Bala are not correct. Complaint filed by Neeraj Bala be filed or kept pending till some counsel prevails upon Neeraj Bala and her brother or wise counsel of her father Joginder Lal prevails. After the complaint was dismissed, then respondent got registered FIR No.65 dated 29.6.2007 (Annexure P-3). As per the request of the respondent, there was an enquiry by the SP, Ludhiana. Complaint moved by the respondent was found to be false. Joginder Lal, father of the respondent, submitted his affidavit Crl.Misc.No.M-5543 of 2009 4 (Annexure P-5) to the effect that Neeraj Bala was married with Sanjeev Ahuja on 11.10.2000. At the time of marriage, 4-5 tolas of gold was given. Neeraj Bala, after fighting with her husband, is staying in his house situated in Ludhiana. Neeraj Bala reported that she has brought gold ornaments while leaving her matrimonial house. In-laws of Neeraj Bala are not at fault. After FIR No.65 dated 29.6.2007 was got registered, then respondent filed petition (Annexure P-6) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Vide order dated 10.12.2008 (Annexure P-8), Sanjeev Ahuja was directed to pay interim maintenance @ Rs.2000/- per month. Neeraj Bala then filed complaint (Annexure P-8) under Section 12 of the Act for following reliefs: 1. Under Section 18 of the Act to pass protection order against all the respondents in the complaint, 2. Under Section 19 of the Act, separate residence, 3. Under Section 20 of the Act, mandatory relief from respondent No.1 in the shape of maintenance, 4. Under Section 21 of the Act, temporary custody of minor son Sayam, and 5. Under Section 22 of the Act, compensation from the respondents. But the aforesaid reliefs sought are available against the husband. Taking the allegations of the respondent as correct one, no relief can be granted against the petitioners. In Ajay Kant's case (supra), it is held that complaint under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act- Application can be filed only against adult male members- Application against ladies is not maintainable. Complaint under Sections 12 and 2(q) of the Act- Complaint Crl.Misc.No.M-5543 of 2009 5 against the adult male members is maintainable-Complaint against ladies is not maintainable- Proceedings qua ladies were quashed. Section 2(q) of the Act is reproduced as under:- “2(q) `Respondent' means any adult male person who is or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act: Provided that aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner.” In view of Section 2(q) of the Act, complaint against the ladies is not maintainable. Under Section 12 of the Act, Magistrate was required to consider as to whether there was any domestic incident report from the Protection Officer or service provider. In the present case, no report by the Protection Officer or service provider. Without report, summoning order was passed in violation of Sections 12 and 2(q) of the Act. No provision in the Act that complaint under Section 12 of the Act is maintainable against the females. In view of above discussion, petition is accepted. Complaint No.435 of 2007 titled as Neeraj Bala vs. Sanjeev Ahuja and others, pending in the Court of JMIC, Ludhiana, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and summoning order dated 18.7.2007 qua the petitioners stand quashed. 17.11.2009 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE