ORDER
The petitioner has invoked section 482 Cr.P.C, to quash the petition filed by respondent under section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act).
2. I have heard Sri. S. Shaker Shetty, learned counsel for petitioner and respondent/party-in-person.
3. Sri. S. Shaker Shetty, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the averments of complaint and the documents relied upon by respondent, prima facie reveal that there was no domestic relationship between petitioner and respondent and the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the facts of the case.
4. The learned counsel for petitioner has taken me through several documents to contend that entire material relied upon by respondent accepted on its face value do not establish domestic relationship between petitioner and respondent and therefore, petition filed before the court below under section 12 of the Act is abuse of process of law.
5. The learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, reported in AIR 2014 SC 309 (in the case of Indra Sarma v. V.K.V Sarma) to contend that when a woman knowing full that marriage of a man is in subsistence, before commencement of their relationship, then status of such woman would be that of a concubine and she cannot invoke the provisions of the Act.
This decision was tendered on merits of the case. There was full fledged trial before the trial court.
6. The learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, reported in (2010) 10 SCC 660 (in the case of Asoke Basak v. State of Maharashtra), to contend that if the allegations made in first information/complaint accepted on their face value do not establish the offences alleged against opponent, this court has to quash the first information/complaint by exercising powers under section 482 Cr.P.C
7. The respondent/party-in-person has taken me through various documents and correspondence of events which had taken place between parties since 1990. The respondent would submit that she has enough material to establish the domestic relationship between herself and petitioner. Therefore, the contention of petitioner that there is no domestic relationship between petitioner and respondent cannot be accepted.
8. In a decision reported in AIR SCW 2013 6660 (in the case of Vinod Raghuvanshi v. Ajay Arora), the Supreme Court has held:-
“19. It is a settled legal proposition that while considering the case for quashing of the criminal proceedings the Court should not “kill a stillborn child”, and appropriate prosecution should not be stifled unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance.
When a prosecution at the initial stage is to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is whether the uncontroverted allegations as made, prima facie establish the offence. At this stage neither the Court can embark upon an inquiry, whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or nor the Court should judge the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein. More so, the charge-sheet filed or charges framed at the initial stage can be altered/amended or a charge can be added at the subsequent stage, after the evidence is adduced in view of the provisions of Section 216, Cr P.C So, the order passed even by the High Court or this Court is subject to the order which would be passed by the trial Court at a later stage.”
9. After hearing the learned counsel for parties and on going through the averments of petition and the documents relied upon by respondent before court below, I am not persuaded to accept the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner that petition initiated under section 12 of the Act before court below is prima facie frivolous. The question whether there is domestic relationship between parties and respondent can invoke the provisions of the Act is a matter for consideration by trial court. This court cannot read the documents as per se evidence to record a finding either in favour of petitioner or in favour of respondent.
10. The learned counsel for petitioner has taken me through certain documents to contend that respondent has made several admissions which would prima facie establish that respondent had not lived with petitioner as his wife and there has not been any type of relationship which would fall within the definition of ‘domestic relationship’ under the Act.
11. The law is fairly well settled that party who has made an admission is not precluded from establishing that such an admission was made under mistaken impression of fact or erroneous impression of fact. The law is fairly well settled that admission is not conclusive proof of fact.
In the case on hand, whether these admissions would enable the petitioner to establish that there is no domestic relationship between petitioner and respondent is a matter for consideration by the trial court. In the circumstances, this court cannot exercise powers under section 482 Cr.P.C, to quash the petition pending before the trial court.
12. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the observations made herein shall not be construed as expression of opinion on merits of the case. The trial court shall expedite the proceedings.