the protection of woman domestic violence act -2005
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 15 August 2010
This query is : Resolved
Hi..
I am an advocate Practice in criminal court of Ahmedabad.
I have one query..
can victim joint her in-laws name's in her petition for domestic violence?? If Yes?? why?? If No?? why??
s.subramanian
(Expert) 15 August 2010
In-laws can be added as accused if they played any role in the commission of violence. Otherwise they cannot be added.
WHATSAPP 91-8075113965
(Expert) 15 August 2010
of course, in-laws can also be arrayed, if they have also involved in the commission of any domestic violence.
see a citation , wherein a no.of respondents move an application before high court, to quash the DV proceedings....
Present:- Mr. Baldev Singh, Sr. ... vs Mr. M.S.Bajwa, Advocate, For The on 25 February, 2009
Cites 4 docs
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 25 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890
Blog Links
powered by
Punjab-Haryana High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
-.-
Crl. Misc. No. M- 30672 of 2008
Date of Decision:- 25.2.2009
Amarjit Singh @ Vicky & Ors
Versus
Smt. Navleen Kaur @ Neetu & Ors.
Present:- Mr. Baldev Singh, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Arshwinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. M.S.Bajwa, Advocate, for the respondents. M.M.S.BEDI. (J) (Oral)
Crl. Misc. No. 8327 of 2009
Crl. Misc. application is allowed. Reply filed on behalf of respondents, is permitted to be taken on record. Crl. Misc. No. M-30672 of 2008
Petitioners have filed this petition for quashing of complaint filed by respondent-Navleen Kaur under Section 12 read with Sections 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violance Act, 2005, Annexure P-1, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, and the subsequent proceedings which have arisen out of the said complaint, inter alia, on the ground that similar complaints had earlier been filed by the complainant against the petitioners and that complaint is deviced to harass the petitioners. As per Section 12(5) of the Act, Magistrate is required to make earnest endeavor to dispose of an application within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing, but no steps have been taken to dispose of the application. Crl. Misc. No. M- 30672 of 2008 -2- On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner had been asked to place on record the reply filed before the trial Court to find out whether plea of maintainability of the petition has been taken before the Magistrate.
After carefully going through the contents of the petition, it is apparent that respondent-Navleen Kaur has launched a number of proceedings against the petitioners, which include FIR under Section 498-A (Annexure P/7), complaint (Annexure P-1), petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C (Annexure P/14), complaint to S.S.P (Annexure P/15), Security proceedings as per Kalandra (Annexure P/16) and a complaint under Sections 406, 498-A, 495, 148 and 149 IPC (Annexure P/10). Petitioners have also filed number of cases which include civil suit for recovery, complaint under Section 313 and 120-B IPC (Annexure P/4), a petition under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act (Annexure P/6), a suit for permanent injunction (Annexure P/18) and another suit for injunction (Annexure P/19). Parties have been litigating against each other. In view of the history of prolonged litigation between the petitioners and respondents, it will not be expedient in the interest of justice, at this stage to interfere in the complaint initiated by the respondents (Annexure P/1).
This petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to raise all the pleas taken up in this petition before the concerned Court. It will be open to the petitioners to avail all the other legal remedies available to them. With the above said observation, the present petition is disposed of warranting no directions, at this stage being pre-mature. February 25, 2009 (M.M.S.Bedi) tripti Judge
salilkumar.p
advocate
thalassery-670101
9447536929
Guest
(Expert) 15 August 2010
I am in confirmity with views expressed by Sh. S. Subramanian. The citation relied by Sh. Kumar P Salil is not approriate to authors main questions.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 15 August 2010
thnks sir
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 15 August 2010
The High Courts are in conflict in this aspect. Some High Court like Bombay High Court says it can be arrayed whereas MP High Court, Madras High Court held in contrary. You decide which benefits you most.
G. ARAVINTHAN
(Expert) 15 August 2010
all the in laws in same dwelling house or a cause of action can be parties
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 06 September 2010
complainant is not mention in-laws names at the time of longed fir of 498a,that time her in-laws was in canada. she only made allegation against her husband only. thenafter long time (one and half year) she filed Domestic Violence against her husband and her in-laws.. it is proper?? if yes..pl let me know any citation..if no?? pl let me know any citation
