- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2270 CRL.P No. 102055 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102055 OF 2023 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. ASHEEF S/O SAIYADSAB @ SAIDUSAB TAHASILDAR, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: MECHANIC, R/O: GOKAK ROAD, YADWAD, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 136. 2. SMT. SHAINAJ W/O SAIYADSAB @ SAIDUSAB TAHASILDAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: GOKAK ROAD, YADWAD, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 136. 3. SAIYADSAB @ SAIDUSAB S/O DONGRISAB TAHASILDAR, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GOKAK ROAD, YADWAD, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 136. 4. DONGRISAB S/O SAYADSAB TAHASILDAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GOKAK ROAD, YADWAD, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 136. 5. SHABANA W/O TOUSHIF TITAGUNDI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: NOORANI MOHALLA, YADWAD, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 136. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. SADIYA W/O AASHEEF TAHASILDAR, B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.07 15:50:22 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2270 CRL.P No. 102055 of 2023 AGE: 21 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BASAVA NAGAR, MAHALINGAPUR, TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587 3122. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A. PUROHIT, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF ISSUE OF SUMMONS AND ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CRI.MISC.NO.202/2023 INSTITUTED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-C COMPLAINT ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANAHATTI, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE D.V. ACT, 2005, AS NULL AND VOID. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners challenge the registration of the petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The respondent filed a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act, seeking relief in the form of protection, compensation, etc., alleging that the petitioners/accused, who are her husband, in-laws, and other relatives of her husband, subjected her to harassment. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. It is admitted that petitioners No. 2 to 5 did not share a common residence with the respondent and petitioner No. 1. Therefore, they do not fall within the scope of the term ‘domestic relationship’ as defined under Section 2(f) of the DV Act. Section - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2270 CRL.P No. 102055 of 2023 2(f) of the DV Act defines ‘domestic relationship’ as a relationship between two persons who live or have lived together in a shared household, and includes relationships by marriage, adoption, or family relations. 4. Additionally, Section 2(q) of the DV Act defines the term “respondent” to mean any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person, and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under the provisions of this Act. In the present case, petitioners No. 2 to 5, who do not fall within the definition of ‘domestic relationship’ as per Section 2(f) of the DV Act, cannot be considered respondents under the DV Act. Since they are not within the purview of the statute’s definition of a respondent, they cannot be prosecuted under Section 12 of the DV Act. 5. Therefore, based on the above legal provisions and reasoning, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in Crl. Misc. No. 202/2023, on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Banahatti, insofar as they concern petitioners No. 2 to 5, are hereby quashed. Pending applications, if any, are disposed off as not surviving for consideration. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JTR CT:BCK LIST NO.: 3 SL NO.: 3