Harini H Vs Kavya H and Ors on 17 Jun 2021

Posted on July 1, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

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 under Section 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 her husband to be having illegal relationship with the petitioner and he thought of bringing her to his house. Therefore he argued 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 as mentioned under Section 2(q) of the Act. So far as the petitioner is concerned it cannot be said that she has committed 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 is claimed against the petitioner and therefore the proceedings against her requires to be quashed.

Harini H Vs Kavya H and Ors on 17 Jun 2021

Citations :

Other Sources :

Kar HC | Persons only in ‘domestic relationship’ as per S. 2 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be made as respondent under S. 12 of DV Act

N.Prasad Vs Harithalakshmi on 20 Jul 2020

Posted on January 6, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Based on Inderjit Singh Grewal here, PWDV Act is subject to CrPC 468, so complaint filed after 1 year are time barred, hence the DVC is quashed by Madras High Court.

N.Prasad Vs Harithalakshmi on 20 Jul 2020

Citations : [2020 SCC OnLine Mad 1767]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/108935797/

Madras HC | Limitation provided under CrPC is applicable to complaints under Domestic Violence Act: Court rejects complaint filed after lapse of 1 yr 10 months

Nafisa Anjum Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 26 Sep 2018

Posted on December 2, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Relatives not living in a shared household were implicated in a false DV case, so High Court of Chhattisgarh quashed the DV proceedings against the petitioners.

Nafisa Anjum Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 26 Sep 2018

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/100106255/

https://www.lawyerservices.in/Nafisa-Anjum-Versus-State-of-Chhattisgarh-Through-Officer-In-Charge-Police-Station-2018-09-26

http://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=028102399000

Shyamlal Devda and Ors Vs Parimala on 22 January 2020

Posted on January 23, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice R.Banumathi has delivered this wonderful judgment in a false DV Case, holding that,

9. In the present case, the respondent has made allegations of domestic violence against fourteen appellants. Appellant No.14 is the husband and appellants No.1 and 2 are the parents-in-law of the respondent. All other appellants are relatives of parents-in-law of the respondent. Appellants No.3, 5, 9, 11 and 12 are the brothers of father-in-law of the respondent. Appellants No.4, 6 and 10 are the wives of appellants No.3, 5 and 9 respectively. Appellants No.7 and 8 are the parents of appellant No.1. Appellants No.1 to 6 and 14 are residents of Chennai. Appellants No.7 to 10 are the residents of State of Rajasthan and appellants No.11 to 13 are the residents of State of Gujarat. Admittedly, the matrimonial house of the respondent and appellant No.1 has been at Chennai. Insofar as appellant No.14-husband of the respondent and appellants No.1 and 2-Parents-in-law, there are averments of alleging domestic violence alleging that they have taken away the jewellery of the respondent gifted to her by her father during marriage and the alleged acts of harassment to the respondent. There are no specific allegations as to how other relatives of appellant No.14 have caused the acts of domestic violence. It is also not known as to how other relatives who are residents of Gujarat and Rajasthan can be held responsible for award of monetary relief to the respondent. The High Court was not right in saying that there was prima facie case against the other appellants No.3 to 13. Since there are no specific allegations against appellants No.3 to 13, the criminal case of domestic violence against them cannot be continued and is liable to be quashed.

Shyamlal Devda and Ors Vs Parimala on 22 January 2020

The Lower High Court judgment in the DV Case is here that got quashed in Supreme Court.

The liar filed a false 498A IPC case also on all 14 accused. Except husband and In-laws, the false case on all 11 others got quashed at Karnataka High Court here.

Citations: [2020 SCC ONLINE SC 65], [2020 SCC 3 14], [2020 SCC CRI 1 722], [2020 AIR SC 762], [2020 KLT 1 666], [2020 KLJ 1 799]

Sachin Sharma and Ors Vs Radhika Sharma on 06 February 2013

Posted on January 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Punjab and Haryana High Court had held that, the cunning respondent levelled similar allegations in FIR under Section 498-A IPC were duly inquired by the police and it was found that petitioners No. 2 and 3 were innocent. So the DV case on both the parents was quashed.

Sachin Sharma and Ors Vs Radhika Sharma on 06 February 2013

Citations: [2013 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 817],

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/83272752/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56099c51e4b01497113cd848

Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

G.Ramesh Babu vs Radhika on 19 December, 2018

Posted on April 21, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Another judgment from Madras High Court, wherein a false DV case on parents was quashed due to generic and non-specific allegation.

G.Ramesh Babu Vs Radhika on 19 December, 2018

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/11203719/

Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Om Parkash Syngal and others Vs Aditi Garg on 01 December, 2015

Posted on April 15, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Patna has quashed the false DV case of the cunning grand-daughter, holding that there is no domestic relationship as there is no shared household between them.

Aditi was just 17 years old when she filed the complaint. The complaint had been filed through her father Arun Garg being the natural guardian.
Om Parkash Syngal and others Vs Aditi Garg on 01 December, 2015

Amit Agarwal and others Vs Sanjay Aggarwal and others on 31 May, 2016

Posted on December 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment, Punjab & Haryana HC held that “Complaint under DV Act not maintainable after divorce”.

Amit Agarwal and others Vs Sanjay Aggarwal and others on 31 May, 2016

Citations: [

Ashish Dixit and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 7 January, 2013

Posted on October 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Nice judgment from Apex Court in quashing the false DVC on relatives of husband.

Ashish Dixit & Ors Vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 7 January, 2013

Citations: [2013 AIR SC 1077], [2013 ALJ 2 231], [2013 BOMCR CRI 1 626], [2013 CRI LJ 1178], [2013 CRIMES SC 1 216], [2013 KHC 1 358], [2013 RCR CIVIL 2 410], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL 2 340], [2013 SCC 4 176], [2013 AIR SC 776], [2013 CRLJ 1178], [[2013 CCR 1 452], [2013 SLT 1 545], [2013 SCC CR 2 337], [2013 BCR CRI 1 626], [2013 RAJ 2 318], [2013 RCR CRI 2 340], [2013 AICLR 1 713], [2013 ALLLJ 2 231], [2013 HINDULR 1 192]

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af2de4b0149711415bbc

The index page is here.

P.Sugunamma And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 19 January, 2015

Posted on October 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a quash judgment from Hon’ble High of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the DVC on relatives of husband are quashed on grounds that there is ‘no shared household’ and ‘no domestic relationship’ conditions.

5. ( i) Coming back to the facts of the case, all the petitioners are residents of Prakasam District whereas the respondent is a resident of Hyderabad. There is nothing on record to show that the present petitioners had any domestic relationship and lived together with the 2nd respondent in a shared household at any point of time. Further after the proceedings in Crime No.204 of 2010 were quashed by this Court, by orders dated 04.10.2012, the present DV case is filed by the 2nd respondent.
6 . Viewed thus, this Court finds that the petitioners have made out valid and sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings against them in D.V.C.No.18 of 2012 on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently, the proceedings against the petitioners herein in D.V.C.No.18 of 2012 on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District are hereby quashed.

P.Sugunamma And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 19 January, 2015

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/196776515/

Citation:

Earlier 498a case that was quashed is available here.

The index page is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: PWDV Act – DV Case Quashed

Harini H Vs Kavya H and Ors on 17 Jun 2021

N.Prasad Vs Harithalakshmi on 20 Jul 2020

Nafisa Anjum Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 26 Sep 2018

Shyamlal Devda and Ors Vs Parimala on 22 January 2020

Sachin Sharma and Ors Vs Radhika Sharma on 06 February 2013

G.Ramesh Babu vs Radhika on 19 December, 2018

Om Parkash Syngal and others Vs Aditi Garg on 01 December, 2015

Amit Agarwal and others Vs Sanjay Aggarwal and others on 31 May, 2016

Ashish Dixit and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 7 January, 2013

P.Sugunamma And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 19 January, 2015