- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4492 CRL.P No. 1597 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1597 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. SRI RAMJI GOVINDARAJAN S/O SRI GOVINDARAJAN SOUNDARAJAN AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS CURRENTLY RESIDING AT NO.126 PARK LAKE, CIR APTC WALNUT CREEK CALIFORNIA-94598-5204 UNITED STATE OF AMERICA (USA) REPRESENTED BY G.P.A HOLDER PETITIONER NO.2 HEREIN 2. SRI GOVINDARAJAN SOUNDARAJAN S/O LATE MR. SOUNDARAJAN AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS RESIDING AT B-306 CENTRAL PARK APARTMENTS 17-1-2017, AMEERPET HYDERABAD - 500 016 3. SMT. TARA GOVINDARAJAN W/O GOVINDARAJAN SOUNDARAJAN AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDING AT B-306 CENTRAL PARK APARTMENTS 17-1-217, AMEERPET HYDERABAD - 500 016 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI: AJITH A SHETTY, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4492 CRL.P No. 1597 of 2018 AND: MRS SWETHA MURALI GANESH W/O MR RAMJI GOVINDARAJA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/A 203, COGGINS DRIVE APT. NO. A204, PLEASANT HILL C.A.-94523, U.S.A. REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER AND GPA HOLDER DR MURALI GANESH KODOOR S/O LATE SIVA SHARMA KODOOR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS LADIES MILE ELLERSLSLIE RESIDENT OF NO.119 ACUKLAND 1051, NEW ZEALAND ALSO MAY BE SERVED AT NO.82 3RD MAIN, 5TH CROSS, RMV 2ND STAGE BANGALORE - 560 094 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI: MAHABALESHWAR G.L., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH ALL PROCEEDINGS IN FURTHERANCE TO PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.03.2016 PASSED BY THE IV M.M.T.C., BENGALURU IN AS MUCH AS HAVING ISSUED PROCESS IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.23/2016 FILED UNDER SECTION 12 OF PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4492 CRL.P No. 1597 of 2018 ORAL ORDER The petitioners being respondent Nos.1 to 3 in Crl.Misc.No.23 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate and Traffic Court, Bengaluru, filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the DV Act'), are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 2. Heard Sri Ajith A Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondent remained absent. He has not addressed his arguments inspite of giving sufficient opportunity. Hence, his arguments is taken as NIL. Perused the materials on record. 3. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and on going through the materials on record, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4492 CRL.P No. 1597 of 2018 REASONS 4. Crl.Misc.No.23 of 2016 came to be filed by the respondent who is the resident of USA, represented through power of attorney holder, Murali G K who is said to be her father. The petition under Section 12 of DV Act was filed seeking protection order making allegations against these petitioners. It is stated that the marriage between the respondent and petitioner No.1 was performed on 25.03.2012 and immediately thereafter, both of them went to USA. It is stated that till today, respondent is the resident of USA and it is confirmed on seeing the petition filed by the respondent where her address is mentioned as resident of USA. Obviously this may be the reason for her father to file the petition seeking protection order under Section 12 of DV Act as power of attorney holder. 5. My attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioners that similar petition in Crl.Misc.No.23 of 2015 was filed by the respondent again represented through her father. The said petition was never entertained by the Trial Court and as per the order dated 25.02.2015, the learned - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4492 CRL.P No. 1597 of 2018 Magistrate referring to Section 12(1) of DV Act, held that it is only the aggrieved person who is entitled for protection order and she cannot be permitted to be represented by her father to prosecute the petition and to get a protection order. The Court referred to the words any other person 'may present' the application as found in Section 12 of DV Act and opined that strict meaning of presenting the application on behalf of the aggrieved person is permitted, but the father of the respondent cannot represent her for making allegations, filing the petition and seek the orders on her behalf. 6. Inspite of the above, Crl.Misc.No.23 of 2016 is again filed on behalf of respondent by her father as power of attorney holder. The averments made in Crl.Misc.Nos.23 of 2015 and 23 of 2016 are almost similar. No specific reasons are assigned as to why the father of respondent has filed the second petition when the similar petition filed during 2015 came to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to the affidavit sworn to by the father of respondent to the effect that he is the citizen of New Zealand. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4492 CRL.P No. 1597 of 2018 According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent and petitioner No.1 were in USA, and the respondent never returned from USA. Even her parents are the citizens and residents of New Zealand. It is stated that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent is already dissolved by a decree of divorce and petitioner No.1 is taking care of the child. Learned counsel for the respondent is not present to address the arguments and to counter all these allegations. 8. Considering all these facts and circumstances and also in view of the fact that earlier Crl.Misc.No.23 of 2015 filed by the father of the respondent as power of attorney holder came to be dismissed, the present petition came to be filed again by the father of the respondent making similar allegations, I am of the opinion that there are no prima facie materials to seek protection order by the respondent, who is the resident of USA. Hence, the criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4492 CRL.P No. 1597 of 2018 (ii) The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crl.Misc.No.23 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate and Traffic Court, Bengaluru, filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE *bgn/- CT:VS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4