Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Tanvir Hassan Dar & Ors vs Mst. Masarat Majeed on 18 July, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
Item No.103
Suppl List-2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
CRM(M) No.412/2025
CrlM No.988/2025
CrlM No.989/2025
TANVIR HASSAN DAR & ORS. ...PETITIONER(S)
Through: - Mr. Salih Pirzada, Advocate, with
Ms. Sharaf Wani & Ms. Syed Ainain Qadri, Advocates.
Vs.
Mst. Masarat Majeed ...RESPONDENT(S)
Through:- None.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER(ORAL)
18.07.2025
1) The petitioners, through the medium of present petition, have
challenged the petition filed by the respondent against them under Section
12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [for
short ” the DV Act‘”], which is stated to be pending before the Court of
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (3rd Additional Munsiff), Srinagar
(hereinafter referred to as “the trial Magistrate”). Challenge has also been
thrown to proceedings emanating from the aforesaid complaint and order
dated 17.12.2022 passed by the learned trial Magistrate, whereby
petitioner No.1 has been directed to pay monetary compensation of
Rs.1500/ per month to the respondent.
2) Heard and considered.
3) It appears that the respondent happens to be the wife of petitioner
No.1 whereas the other petitioners happen to be the relatives of petitioner
CRM(M) No.412/2025 Page 1 of 5
No.1. It appears that the respondent has filed the impugned petition under
Section 12 of the DV Act before the learned trial Magistrate against the
petitioners alleging therein that she is a victim of continuous harassment,
torture, violence etc. at the hands of the petitioners. It has been pleaded by
the respondent that she had entered into wedlock with petitioner No.1 on
24th September, 2013 and out of this wedlock, one issue was born on
13.10.2014. According to the respondent, after solemnization of marriage,
the conduct of the petitioner No.1 and his relatives, (the other petitioners
herein, has been cruel towards her).
4) The petitioners have challenged the impugned petition on the
grounds that there are no specific allegations made in the impugned
petition relating to the roles of the petitioners in their individual capacity.
It has been contended that the allegations made in the impugned petition
are vague. It is being contended that the impugned proceedings are
vexatious in nature and the learned trial Magistrate, while entertaining the
said petition and issuing process against the petitioners, has failed to apply
its mind. It has been further contended that the relatives of petitioner No.1
have been un-necessarily impleaded as respondents in the impugned
petition with a view to coerce petitioner No.1 to enter into a compromise
favourable to the respondent. It has been submitted that some of the
petitioners are not even residing with petitioner No.1 but still they have
been roped in to wreak vengeance upon them.
5) It appears that the petitioners, in effect, are aggrieved of the
impugned petition filed by the respondent against them, primarily, on the
grounds that there are no specific allegations made in the said complaint
CRM(M) No.412/2025 Page 2 of 5
against them and that whole family of the petitioner No.1 including his
relatives, who are not even residing with him, have been roped with a view
to wreak vengeance upon them.
6) So far as the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act are
concerned, the same cannot be equated with lodging of a criminal
complaint or initiation of prosecution. So, the trial Magistrate, after
obtaining the response from the husband and his relatives etc. is well
within his jurisdiction to revoke his order of issuing summons to them or
he can even drop the proceedings. The Magistrate is also competent to
drop the proceedings against all or any of the relatives of the husband if
he, upon going through their response, finds that they have been
unnecessarily roped in. Since the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV
Act are not, in strict sense, criminal in nature, as such, bar to alter/revoke
an order by a Magistrate is not attracted to these proceedings.
7) In my aforesaid view, I am supported by the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Kamatchi vs. Lakshmi Narayanan, 2022
SCC OnLine SC 446. The Supreme Court in the said case has observed
that scope of notice under Section 12 of the DV Act is to call for a
response from the respondent in terms of the Statute so that after
considering rival submissions, appropriate order can be issued. The Court
further held that the matter stands on a different footing and the dictum in
Adalat Prasad’s case ((2004) 7 SCC 338) would not get attracted at a
stage when a notice is issued under Section 12 of the Act.
8) From the above discussion, it is clear that a Magistrate if, after
receiving the version of the husband and his relatives in a proceeding
CRM(M) No.412/2025 Page 3 of 5
under Section 12 of the DV Act, comes to a conclusion that no case for
proceeding against either all of them or some of them is made out, he can
drop the proceedings and he can even re-call his order of interim monetary
compensation granted in favour of the aggrieved person. In view of this
legal position, it would be open to the petitioners to file an application
before the learned trial Magistrate seeking an order for dropping of
proceedings against them on the grounds which have been urged by them
in the present petition.
9) Accordingly, without going into merits of the contentions raised by
learned counsel for the petitioners, it is provided that the petitioners may
file an application before the learned trial Magistrate for dropping of the
proceedings against them. In case the same is done by the petitioners, the
learned Magistrate shall, after hearing the parties, pass appropriate orders
in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of one
month from the date such application is made by the petitioners before the
learned Magistrate.
10) Having regard to the fact that in the impugned petition not only the
husband (petitioner No.1 herein) but even his as many as six relatives
(petitioners No.2 to 7 herein), some of whom are not even residing with
petitioner No.1, have been impleaded as party/respondents by the
respondent herein, it is provided that in case the petitioners make an
application for dropping of proceedings before the trial Magistrate within
ten days from today, till such time the said application is decided by the
learned trial Magistrate, further proceedings in the impugned complaint
as against the petitioners shall remained stayed.
CRM(M) No.412/2025 Page 4 of 5
11) The petition is disposed of in the above terms along with connected
CrlM(s).
12) A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Magistrate for
information and compliance.
(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
Srinagar,
18.07.2027
“Bhat Altaf-Secy”
Whether the ORDER is reportable: Yes/No
CRM(M) No.412/2025 Page 5 of 5
[ad_1]
Source link