1 2025:CGHC:3470 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1486 of 2018 1 - Jitendra Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Ram Khilawan Dewangan, Aged About 40 Years Occupation Government Servant, Presently R/o Office Of Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Raigarh, Circle, Tehsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Permanent Residents Of Katiyapara, Near Kakku Flour Mill, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ram Khilawan Dewangan, Aged About 70 Years, Permanent Residents Of Katiyapara, Near Kakku Flour Mill, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Phoolbai Dewangan W/o Shri Ram Khilawan Dewangan, Aged About 61 Years Permanent Residents Of Katiyapara, Near Kakku Flour Mill, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus Neeti Dewangan W/o Shri Jitendra Kumar Dewangan, Aged About 37 Years R/o Koshtapara, Palace Road, Narsing Temple Gali, Raigarh, Police Station City Kotwali, Tehsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20/01/2025 1. Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash all the proceedings of Case No. 221/2017 under The Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class Raigarh. This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass such other orders as it may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioners against the respondent.” 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this case are that the marriage of respondent with petitioner No.1 was solemnized in 2008, and they have a daughter. The petitioner No.1 is an engineer who has been posted in various locations, including Kasdol, Raigarh, Sakti, and Kharsia District Raigarh, from 2008 to August 2017. During this time, the respondent lived with her parents in Raigarh, and the petitioner No.1 would visit her on weekends or holidays. The respondent worked as a Guest Lecturer at PDS Commerce and Arts College, Raigarh, from 2007 to 2010, and later at Government College Dharamjaigarh from October 2010 to May 2011, with a monthly remuneration of less than Rs.6,000/-. After being selected by the Chhattisgarh Public 3 Service Commission in December 2012, she was appointed as an Assistant Professor and posted at Lailunga, Raigarh, with a total monthly emolument of Rs.70,427/-. The petitioner No.1 purchased a plot at Krishna Vatika Phase-2 and constructed a house, but the respondent was unwilling to live there with him, leading to quarrels. In an attempt to resolve the issue, the petitioner No.1 parents came to Raigarh in April 2016, and a settlement was made. However, the respondent continued to quarrel with the petitioner No.1 over trivial issues and eventually left his company on 13/04/2017, taking all her belongings with her. 4. The petitioners, attempted to resolve the situation amicably, but unfortunately, all efforts to bring the respondent back were unsuccessful. As a result, the petitioner No.1 wrote a letter to the Women's Cell in Raigarh. In response to this action, the respondent filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, making false allegations against the petitioners, despite being aware that the petitioner No.1 parents lived in Bilaspur, separate from them. The respondent also filed an application with the Police Officers of Raigarh and the Women's Commission. After a six-month delay, on October 11, 2017, the respondent filed an application with the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Raigarh under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, and on the same day, a notice was issued to the petitioners. Following an inquiry into these complaints, the Senior Superintendent of Police submitted a report to the Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Aayog in 4 Raipur, stating that the respondent did not wish to reside with the petitioners, and similarly, the Family Counseling Centre opined that the allegations of dowry and torture were false. 5. The Protection Officer filed a report based solely on the respondent's statement without conducting any investigation, and the Learned Magistrate took cognizance of this and issued summons to the petitioners. However, the question of the petitioners causing mental and physical injury to the respondent does not arise, as the necessary ingredients are not fulfilled according to Section 2() of the Domestic Violence Act. This provision requires that the parties must have lived together, which is not the case here. As per Section 2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act, a "domestic relationship" refers to a relationship between two persons who live or have lived together in a shared household, related by consanguinity, marriage, or a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption, or are family members living together as a joint family. In this case, the respondent never lived in a shared household with the petitioners and to establish a domestic relationship, it is essential that the two individuals have lived together in a shared household. According to Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act, a "shared household" refers to a household where the person aggrieved lives or has lived in a domestic relationship, either alone or with the respondent. 6. This includes households that are jointly owned or tenanted by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by 5 either of them, where either party has a right, title, interest, or equity. It also includes households that may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, regardless of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title, or interest in the shared household. The petitioners and the respondent have never lived together in a shared household. The respondent lived with her parents in Raigarh, while Petitioner No.1 was posted elsewhere, and Petitioner No.2, an advocate, and his wife, Petitioner No.3, resided in Bilaspur. As per Section 2(f)(s) of the Domestic Violence Act, the petitioners and the respondent were not living together under the same shelter, as stated in the complaint itself. Therefore, making allegations of domestic violence would not be valid in the absence of a shared household. One of the primary requirements for claiming relief under the Domestic Violence Act is that there must be domestic violence as defined in Section 3 of the Act. However, in this case, the respondent had never filed a complaint before any authority, officer, or medical officer before 2017. Suddenly, she filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, which appears to be a counterblast to the complaint made by Petitioner No.1 before the Women's Cell in Raigarh. After receiving notice from the court, the petitioners appeared and submitted their reply and have been regularly attending the court proceedings in Raigarh. The respondent is unnecessarily trying to obtain possession of the house in question, claiming that she had shared a residence with 6 the petitioners, despite the fact that she has been living peacefully and regularly with her parents at her maternal home from the very beginning, and has continued to do so even after her marriage, while being in a relationship with Petitioner No.1. Hence, this petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the essential elements of the offense are lacking in the present case, it is a suitable instance for this court to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 to prevent the misuse of the court's process or to ensure that justice is served. The allegations against the petitioners are vague and general in nature, and no specific role has been attributed to any of them. Furthermore, the time and date of the alleged assault have not been specified. He further submits that the respondent filed the current complaint under the Domestic Violence Act as a retaliatory measure after the husband/petitioner No.1 submitted an application to the Women's Cell. The complaint contains false allegations against the husband and his parents, who reside in Bilaspur. He also submits that the court below should not be allowed to proceed solely on the basis of general and vague allegations. The provisions of the Domestic Violence Act require that the parties must have lived together, which is a crucial element that is absent in this case. The complaint has been filed solely to harass the petitioners and the allegations made are extremely scanty, vague, baseless, and lack essential ingredients, and therefore, the petitioners should not be 7 subjected to the ordeal of legal proceedings, as such, the proceedings before the court below constitute an abuse of the legal process, are illegal, and thus deserve to be quashed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, considered his rival submissions made hereinabove and also perused the documents annexed with petition. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the order taking cognizance has already been passed by the concerned trial Court, further charges have also been framed against the petitioners and the case is undergoing trial, as such, I do not find any good ground for interference in the present matter at this stage, as the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent herein discloses cognizable offence against the petitioners, hence the trial has to be brought to its logical end. Further, the matter pertains to the year 2018 and no interim order has been passed till date. 10. In view of the same, the petition being bereft of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil