A brain dead person seems to have tried to implicate unrelated person into a false DV case but the single bench of Karnataka High Court quashed such designed…
From Para 2,
2. The argument of the petitioner’s counsel is that the petitioner has been unnecessarily made a party by the 1st respondent in her application before the Magistrate underSection 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘Act’ for short). He submits that the only allegation found is that the 1st respondent suspected herhusband to be having illegal relationship with the petitioner and he thought of bringing her to his house. Therefore heargued that the petitioner herein should not have been made a party in the application filed under Section 12 of the Act as she does not fall within the meaning of respondent asmentioned under Section 2(q) of the Act. So far as the petitioner is concerned it cannot be said that she hascommitted domestic violence to prosecute her to claim any relief from her. In fact if the reliefs claimed in the application made under Section 12 of the Act are perused, no relief isclaimed against the petitioner and therefore the proceedings against her requires to be quashed.
Curated, Reproduced from main.sci.gov.in, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in or any other Government websites such as Gazettes and repositories of Government Orders and Commented in accordance with Section 52(1)(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) and any other applicable public disclosure laws/provisions in India and in various other countries.
I neither have control to remove copies of this document(s) that may be available on websites of High Courts or Supreme Court of India or any of the many other sites, law journal or reporters which carry the same judgment in entire form, nor I can remove references/links to this document(s) from the results of Search Engines such as Google.com.