Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Ashish Dixit & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Anr

Supreme Court7 January 2013Chandramauli Kr. Prasad · H.L. Dattu

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

In proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a petition must be confined to the actual persons against whom domestic violence is alleged and who are capable of committing such violence; respondents who have no connection to the alleged acts of violence, including persons whose names are unknown to the complainant, ought not to be impleaded and proceedings against them must be quashed.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 43 OF 2013(SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.)NO.8522 OF 2010)
ASHISH DIXIT & ORS. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.07.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.8358 of 2008. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has refused to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners by the respondent no.2-wife, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for brevity “the Act, 2005”).

3. In the petition filed by respondent no.2, apart from arraying her husband and her parents-in-law as parties to the proceedings, has included all and sundry, as : 2 : respondents. To say the least, she has even alleged certain actions said to have been done by the tenant whose name is not even known to her.

4. In a matter of this nature, we are of the opinion that the High Court at least should have directed that the petition filed by respondent no.2 be confined to her husband as also her parents-in-law and should not have allowed the impleadment of respondent nos.4 to 12.

5. In view of the above, while allowing this appeal in part, we quash the proceedings as against appellant nos. 4 to 12 in Case No.240 of 2007. We direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra to proceed with the aforesaid case; only against the husband i.e. Shri Ashish Dixit, S/o. Padmakar Dutt Sharma, her father in law, Shri Padmakar Dutt Sharma, S/o.late Pt.Diwakar Dutt Sharma and Smt.Girja Dixit, W/o.Shri Padmakar Dutt Sharma, her mother in law.

: 3 : 6. We are of the opinion that the direction issued by the High Court, inter-alia, directing the appellants herein to appear before the Trial Court and seek bail is wholly unnecessary.

.......................J. (H.L. DATTU)

.......................J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 07, 2013.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free