Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, eight individuals including Prakash Hasabi and others, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.15/2014 pending before the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubli. The respondent, Sarita Kapase, had filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, alleging domestic violence. The petitioners argued that the respondent was not in a domestic relationship with them as she was merely a friend of petitioner No.1 and had never lived with them in a shared household. Additionally, the respondent resided in Hubli, while the petitioners resided in Bangalore and Gadag, and the alleged incident occurred in Bangalore, thus the Hubli court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The respondent contended that she had a domestic relationship and that the court had jurisdiction. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the respondent had not established a domestic relationship as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act, as she had not lived with the petitioners in a shared household. The court also noted that the application was filed in Hubli, whereas the respondent resided in Hubli but the petitioners and the cause of action were in Bangalore, making the Hubli court without jurisdiction. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings, holding that the continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Proceedings - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Inherent Powers - The High Court can quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court or to secure ends of justice. (Para 1) B) Domestic Violence - Jurisdiction - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 12 - The application under Section 12 must be filed in the court within whose jurisdiction the aggrieved person resides or carries on business or the respondent resides or the cause of action arises. In this case, the respondent resided in Hubli, but the petitioners resided in Bangalore and Gadag, and the alleged incident occurred in Bangalore, hence the court at Hubli lacked jurisdiction. (Paras 2-4) C) Domestic Violence - Domestic Relationship - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 2(f) - The definition of 'domestic relationship' requires that the parties live together in a shared household. The respondent was not living with the petitioners in a shared household, and the relationship was merely that of a friend, not a domestic relationship. (Paras 3-4) D) Domestic Violence - Shared Household - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 2(s) - The concept of shared household requires that the aggrieved person has lived in the household in a domestic relationship. The respondent never lived with the petitioners in any shared household. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, can be quashed when the complainant does not have a domestic relationship with the petitioners and the application was filed beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.15/2014 on the file of I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubli, are quashed.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- 2005
- Section 12 application
- Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing
- Definition of domestic relationship
- Shared household
