In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur quashed the summons issued against the relatives of a husband in a domestic violence case. The case, S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 611/2022, was filed by Pushpendra Kumari and others against the State of Rajasthan and Smt. Harshita Bhati. The petitioners sought to quash the summons issued by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No. 5, Jodhpur Metropolitan, in proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).
Important Legal Issues
1. Validity of Summons: The primary legal issue was whether the summons issued against the petitioners under the DV Act were valid, given the allegations and the evidence presented.
2. Domestic Relationship: The court examined whether the petitioners had a domestic relationship with the complainant, as required under the DV Act.
3. Specific Allegations: The necessity of specific allegations and evidence against the accused relatives was scrutinized.
Court’s Decision
Justice Arun Monga quashed the summons against the petitioners, highlighting several key points:
1. Lack of Shared Household: The petitioners argued that they never shared a household with the complainant, Harshita Bhati, and that the allegations were fabricated to tarnish the family’s image. The court found merit in this argument, noting the absence of specific allegations and evidence against the petitioners.
2. Delayed Complaint: The court observed that the complaint was lodged 19 years after the marriage and several years after the complainant had voluntarily left her husband. This delay raised questions about the authenticity of the allegations.
3. Mechanical Issuance of Process: Justice Monga emphasized that the issuance of process by the judicial magistrate should not be a mechanical process but must involve due application of mind and sufficient evidence. He stated, “The facts and circumstances of the D.V. Act Petition do not prove any kind of violence ever happened to respondent No. 2, as she never filed any written complaint.”
4. Quashing of Summons Against Mother-in-Law: The court quashed the summons against the 75-year-old widow mother-in-law, Pushpendra Kumari, as the complainant had no objection to this.
5. Proceedings Against Other Petitioners: While the court quashed the summons against the mother-in-law, it directed the trial court to proceed with the matter against the other petitioners without insisting on their personal presence, except for the husband of the complainant.
Observations of the Court
Justice Monga made several important observations in his ruling:
– “The grounds of the petitions are that the charges levelled against the present petitioners in the said D.V. Act petition under Section 23 are completely fabricated and appear to be scripted solely to tarnish the image of the husband and family in society.”
– “The facts and circumstances of the D.V. Act Petition do not prove any kind of violence ever happened to respondent No. 2, as she never filed any written complaint.”
Also Read
Parties Involved
– Petitioners: Pushpendra Kumari, Karni Singh Bhati, Darshani Singh, and Anirudh Singh Bhati
– Respondents: State of Rajasthan and Smt. Harshita Bhati
– Judges: Justice Arun Monga
– Lawyers: Mr. Gorav Singh (Public Prosecutor) and Ms. Priyanka Borana (Respondent’s Counsel)
