1 CM(M) No. 369/2024 S. No. 5 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) No. 369/2024 Showket Rashid Chopan and Ors. …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Saleem Gull, Advocate Vs. Safeena Jan ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. T. A. Lone, Advocate Mr. I. Sofi, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE O R D E R 06.05.2025 1. In the Instant petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking quashment of complaint titled “Safeena Jan v. Showket Ahmad Chopan and Ors.” filed under Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Handwara Kupwara (Munsiff) (for short “the trial court”). 2. Aggrieved of the aforesaid complaint, the petitioners challenge the same, inter alia, on the following grounds: - (i) That the dispute between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent was civil in nature with regard to the land measuring 17 marlas. A benami transaction was made in favour of attorney holder, namely, Ab. Rashid Dar S/o Ab. Khaliq Dar R/o Lachipora Handwara, and the respondent has taken an advantage of petitioner No.1, who happens to be the husband and was admitted in SKIMS Soura, for his treatment, managed to get the said subject land registered in her favour and that was the bone contention between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent when the petitioner No.1 intended to sell out the 2 CM(M) No. 369/2024 said patch of land for his treatment as he was required to treat outside valley during the lockdown period as the petitioner No.1 is contingent paid worker and getting meagre salary was not in a position to meet out his medical expenses and surgical costs. Therefore, the petitioner was denied the ownership of the said land resulted in filing of FIR and domestic violence complaint against the petitioner No.1 and his family members; (ii) That the complaint of Domestic Violence and the proceedings emanating therefrom is not maintainable simply for the reason that neither any Domestic Violence incident has been reported nor the contents of complaint prima facie make out a case for cognizance under and in terms of provisions of Domestic Violence Act. There is a tendency to involve the entire family members in domestic quarrel taking place in matrimonial disputes. In maximum cases, the law of domestic violence is being misused so as to terrorize the husband. Therefore, the learned court below while taking cognizance of the complaint against the petitioners has miserably failed to record satisfaction before issuing process against the petitioners, therefore, the complaint titled Safeena Jan v. Showket Rashid Chopan and Ors. and the proceedings emanating therefrom deservers to be quashed and set aside by this Court; (iii) That the Hon’ble Apex Court of India as also various other High Courts of the Country in a catena of judgements have observed the misuse of provisions of Domestic Violence Act by disgruntled wives. They intentionally make an attempt to drag the family members of their husband to false and frivolous litigation. In order to establish the allegations of cruelty and violence there has to be a close proximity of time in lodging the complaint either before police or concerned court. The averments of impugned complaint do not disclose any specific event or incident of Domestic Violence by petitioner, therefore, the cognizance taken by the learned court below without seeking a domestic violence report from the CDPO concerned or the service provider makes the cognizance of the case 3 CM(M) No. 369/2024 against the petitioners a nullity in the eyes of law and, thus, deserves to be set aside by this Court; (iv) That a complaint under Domestic Violence Act has to be supported by a domestic incident report prepared by the protection officer or by the service provider and the said DIR report lays the foundation for domestic violence case and in case a complaint of domestic violence is filed without DIR; (v) That the petitioners 1 & 3 are Government employees and the petitioner No.2 who is a retired Government employee have been dragged in this criminal litigation and as a bona fide and law abiding citizens of country, the petitioners are attending the cases before the learned trial court which ultimately effects their liberty as the trial court while deciding the interim application in Domestic Violence Complaint, the trial court found the complaint a devoid of merits and rightly rejected the application. On this count, the impugned complaint deserves to be set aside by this Court. (vi) That the petitioner no. 1 having two children, a daughter aged 14 years and the son aged 12 years are living with the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner no.1 as obedient father is caring and giving him good quality of education as a respondent has already grabbed the land and now is eyeing on to grab the house of the petitioner No.1, since this whole story which has been created by the respondent is against the mandate of Domestic Violence Act, nevertheless it is a civil legislation for the protection of women from subjecting to domestic violence, but in the instant case, the respondent has misused the mandate of law for her personal benefits and gains. On this count also the impugned complaint deserves to be set aside by this Court. (vii) That the main motive and object of filing the impugned DV complaint was only to grab the house of the complainant, refer to the Para No.7 of order dated 11.09.2023, in which the trial court has clearly pointed out that the respondent wants to be in touch with her children but as there was nothing found on record with regard to seeking the custody of the children as the children are happily 4 CM(M) No. 369/2024 residing with petitioner No.1. It is pertinent to mention here that prima facie, it seems that how the respondent is after the property of petitioner No.1 after grabbing the land is eyeing on his house. The petitioners are made to suffer by this frivolous and false compliant filed against them. On this count also the impugned complaint deserves to quash and set aside by this Court. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 4. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is enacted to provide for more effective protection of rights of a woman guaranteed under the Constitution, who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The domestic violence is undoubtedly a human right issue and serious deterrent to developments. The law has been enacted keeping in view the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution to provide for a remedy under civil law which is intended to protect the woman from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society. 5. The main ground taken by petitioners for seeking quashment of complaint is that the allegations contained in the complaint are false, therefore, such complaint on false allegations is not maintainable and process on the basis of these false allegations could not have been issued. 6. A petition under the provisions of the Act is being maintained by a woman, who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence. Section 2(a) of the Act defines an aggrieved person as “any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by 5 CM(M) No. 369/2024 the respondent” and, therefore, any woman who is, or has been, domestic relationship, is entitled to make a complaint by invoking provisions of the Act. 7. The complaint under Section 12 of the Act was filed by complainant- wife on 24.05.2023 and cognizance was taken and petitioner No.1 was summoned by Trial court. He filed his objections. Statement of respondent-complainant was recorded on 13.02.2024. Evidence was closed on 29.03.2024. Thereafter petitioner herein was to produce evidence, but he, instead of doing so, has filed instant petition on 05.10.2024. Insofar as the relationship between petitioner No.1 and respondent is concerned, that is not in dispute. 8. In the complaint filed by respondent-wife, it is alleged by her that after marriage in 2007, their relation remained cordial for few years and, thereafter the attitude of petitioner No.1, husband of respondent, was bad and he used to beat her due to some nefarious designs of getting marriage afresh at village Trehgam with some girl. She was mentally harassed by husband day in and day out and finally deserted and left her. The contents of complaint would show that petitioner No.1 had subjected respondent to cruelty, beating and harassing and allegation is also that petitioner No.1 deserted her. These allegations constitute act of domestic violence. As the contents of complaint disclosed the commission of domestic violence towards the respondent wife, therefore, the trial court has rightly after entertaining the complaint taken cognizance and issued process. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India because this Court has supervisory 6 CM(M) No. 369/2024 powers to exercise over the functioning of subordinate courts and tribunals within its jurisdiction. This provision, enshrined under Part V of the Constitution of India, ensures that the subordinate judiciary functions within the boundaries of law, maintains judicial discipline and avoids any arbitrary or unlawful actions. Thus, Article 227 is primarily concerned with the power of superintendence granted to the High Courts. This power applies over all courts and tribunals within the territory under the High Court’s jurisdiction. It is a supervisory power, and the High Court can oversee the functioning of these courts to ensure that they exercise their jurisdiction correctly and lawfully. It is both judicial and administrative in nature. While judicial aspect ensures that High Courts have authority to correct any legal or procedural errors made by lower courts, the administrative aspect ensures that judiciary, as a whole, functions in an orderly manner. 10. It is being stated that there is illegality committed by the Trial Court while entertaining the complaint of respondent and initiating proceedings thereon and, as such, the complaint filed by respondent is required to be quashed by exercising the powers vested in this Court under and in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It appears that learned counsel for petitioners has forgotten the purpose of Article 227 of the Constitution. Supervisory powers are to be exercised with great caution and care and only to prevent misuse and can be exercised to achieve the ends of justice. 11. As is evident from the complaint, the allegations contained therein are with regard to wife being subjected to harassment, beating and cruelty by petitioners herein. Such allegations are to be gone into and determined in 7 CM(M) No. 369/2024 the full-fledged trial. Simply on saying of petitioners that allegations contained in complaint are wrong will not be a ground for interference inasmuch as such contention needs to be proved at hilt. Even otherwise while going through the record on the file, it is clear that respondent-wife has produced evidence in support of her allegations contained in her complaint vis-à-vis domestic violence, which too support the allegations made by her and when the petitioners herein were asked to produce evidence, they instead of producing the evidence in rebuttal to evidence produced by respondent, have filed instant petition challenging the process issued in the complaint. Had the allegations been wrong and complaint not maintainable, the petitioners would not have waited till their evidence was closed. It appears that the petitioners having found that their evidence has been closed, they have filed this petition. Filing of present petition amounts to misuse of process of law as the petitioners’ aim and object of filing petition in hand is to delay the proceedings in the petition under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, which are required to be decided expeditiously because complaint is with regard to domestic violence to which a woman has been subjected as alleged and preventing of the same would amount to abuse of process of court and law. Resultantly, this petition is hopelessly without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, the Trial court is directed to proceed with the matter and decide the same expeditiously. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 06.05.2025 Manzoor Manzoor Ul Hassan Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Srinagar 21.05.2025 17:34