SABUJ PAUL vs SMT. ARPITA DASGUPTA

- 1 -
CRL.P No. 7018 of 2019


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

R

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7018 OF 2019


BETWEEN:

1. SABUJ PAUL
S/O SATISH CHANDRA PAUL
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT 803-2960
DON MILLS ROAD
TORONTO M 2J 3B8
…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. S.P.SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. MAMATA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1. SMT. ARPITA DASGUPTA
W/O MR. SABUJI PAUL
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
ILLEGALLY OCCUPYING
B3 # 10-05
ELITA PROMENADE # 101
TH TH
18 MAIN, J.P.NAGAR 7 PHASE
OPP. RBI WATER TANK
BENGALURU-560078
BELONGING TO RESPONDENT-2.

2. SATISH CHANDRA PAUL
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS

3. MRS. JHARNA PAUL
W/O MR. SATISH CHANDRA PAUL
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS

BOTH RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE
R/O RPOHAN VASANTHA APARTMENT











Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
CRL.P No. 7018 of 2019


SPICE GARDEN LAYOUT
MARATHHALLI BRIDGE SERVICE ROAD
AECS LAYOUT, MARATHALLI
BENGALURU-560037.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SHREYA S. KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SIJI MALAYIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 DISPENSED WITH
[VIDE ORDER DATED 23.06.2022])

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
MADE UNDER SECTION 12 OF PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT (PWDV ACT) 2005 BY ALLOWING
THIS PETITION WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT IN THE V MMTC.,
BENGALURU IN C.MIS.148/2017.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 08.10.2026, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CAV ORDER
Heard learned Senior counsel for petitioner and learned
counsel for respondent No.1.
2. The prayer sought in this petition is to quash the
proceedings initiated against the petitioner in
C.Misc.No.148/2017 filed under Section 12 of the Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’ for short) seeking for certain
relief's under the DV Act.

- 3 -
CRL.P No. 7018 of 2019


3. The factual matrix of case of the respondent No.1-
wife while seeking the relief against the petitioner in the said
petition invoking Section 12 of the DV Act is that her marriage
took place with her husband on 06.12.2013 and she had joined
matrimonial home thereafter and stayed in Toronto along with
her husband. Thereafter, she came back to India and she was
not taken back and hence, she filed the petition seeking several
reliefs to pass Protection Order under Section 18 and Residence
Order under Section 19 and direct the respondent No.1-
petitioner herein to pay monitory relief under Section 20 and so
also, grant compensation and damages under Section 22. While
filing the petition, the respondent No.1-wife also made
allegations against each of the respondents about their role and
though petition was filed against respondent Nos.1 to 5 before
the MMTC, but subsequently, respondent Nos.4 and 5 were
deleted and only respondent Nos.2 and 3 remain for
consideration.
4. Learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioner in
his argument would vehemently contend that it is not in dispute
that marriage has taken place on 06.12.2013 and petitioner,
who is the respondent No.1 before the MMTC is a permanent
resident working in Toronto and marriage between this

- 4 -
CRL.P No. 7018 of 2019


petitioner and respondent No.1-wife was held through
Shaadi.com and marriage was solemnized in Kolkata. After the
marriage, till arrangements were made for securing permanent
Resident Certificate, respondent No.1 lived with respondent
Nos.2 and 3 for a very short period in Bangalore and continued
her job which she was doing before the marriage and after
making arrangement, petitioner took his wife along with him
and they led married life in their matrimonial home at Toronto.
It is also stated that after spending almost a year with her
husband in her matrimonial home at Toronto, the respondent
No.1-wife returned to Kolkata only to visit her parents and
returned back to Toronto. But, without any reason, respondent
No.1 stayed back in India with her parents and did not join her
husband in Toronto. But, after a lapse of 1 year and 4 months
after returning from Toronto, all of a sudden, she filed the
present petition. It is also contented that after filing the present
petition, she also filed a petition in M.C.No.4543/2017 under
Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petitioner having
come to know about the same, came down to India and before
issuing notice, appeared and expressed his willingness to take
her back and prayed for decree and accordingly, the same was
decreed on 03.11.2018 and the Court also taken note of

- 5 -
CRL.P No. 7018 of 2019


readiness of the petitioner. That on 29.11.2018, the petitioner
appeared through his advocate before the Court and produced
copy of the order passed by Principal Judge, Family Court,
Bengaluru in M.C.No.4543/2017 and requested for dismissal of
the complaint. But, the same was rejected and no direction is
issued to dismiss the complaint. Thereafter, an application was
filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 64 of Cr.P.C.
for deletion of aged and ailing parents of petitioner, sister and
brother-in-law, since they were arrayed as parties. But,
respondent Nos.4 and 5 were deleted in view of the order, but
rejected in respect of others are concerned.
5. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
during his argument would vehemently contend that the very
filing of the complaint under DV Act is only with an intention to
harass the petitioner. The respondent No.1-wife kept quiet for
1 year and 4 months and proceedings under DV Act was filed in
the month of August 2017 and the same was not filed within 1
year after she coming back in the month of April 2016. The
counsel also would contend that limitation attracts under
Section 468 of Cr.P.C. and so also, no application is filed for
delay under Section 473 of Cr.P.C. The Counsel would contend
that petition is barred by limitation and DV petition filed by the

- 6 -
CRL.P No. 7018 of 2019


respondent No.1-wife not contains any details as to subjecting
her for domestic violence. The counsel also would contend that
when the husband is in Toronto, question of domestic violence
does not arise. The counsel would further contend that when
the petition was filed under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, the same was allowed and even made arrangements to
travel after allowing the petition, she did not travel.
6. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner,
in support of his argument relied upon judgment of the Apex
Court in HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION, ALLAHABAD vs.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. reported in AIR ONLINE 2024 SC
143, wherein the Apex Court held that there cannot be any
passing of blanket orders for vacating, without hearing the
contesting parties.
7. The counsel also relied upon order passed by this
Court in PUNDALIK AND OTHERS vs. THE STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER in CRL.P.NO.200907/2023
dated 19.03.2025 and brought to notice of this Court
paragraph No.13, wherein while quashing the criminal action
which was initiated, made an the observation that no specific
role or allegation is levelled against the petitioner therein.

- 7 -
CRL.P No. 7018 of 2019


8. The counsel also relied upon judgment of Bombay
High Court in SEJAL DHARMESH VED vs. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA reported in LAWS (BOM) 2013 3 253,
wherein also discussion was made with regard to Section 2(f) of
DV Act that there cannot be any domestic violence and the
Court observed that a wife who has returned from the USA and
consequently from the domestic relationship and lived in India
for one year cannot file an application with regard to that
relationship after such time. Such wife cannot be taken to be in
any domestic relationship.
9. The counsel also relied upon judgment of the Apex
Court in MRS. SARAH MATHEW vs. INSTITUTE OF CARDIO
VASCULAR DISEASES AND ORS reported in AIR 2014
SUPREME COURT 448, wherein the Apex Court discussed with
regard to taking cognizance, if it is beyond limitation and also
discussed Section 473 of the Code enjoins Courts not only to
see whether delay has been explained but in addition to see
whether it is requirement of justice to ignore delay.
10. The counsel also relied upon judgment of the Apex
Court in CRL.A.NO.515/2019 dated 15.03.2019 and brought
to notice of this Court paragraph No.8, wherein discussion was

- 8 -
CRL.P No. 7018 of 2019


made that it is a fit case where charges against the appellants
i.e., father-in-law and mother-in-law of respondent No.2-
complainant, can be quashed.
11. The counsel also relied upon order passed by this
Court in MAREPPA AND OTHERS vs. PUSHAPANJALI in
CRL.P.NO.200009/2021 10.12.2021
dated and the counsel
brought to notice of this Court discussion made in paragraph
No.17, wherein the Court considered definition under Section
2(q) of DV Act and observation is made that if such relief
cannot be granted against these petitioners, there cannot be
any petition under DV Act against these petitioners and Court
can exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in
her argument would vehemently contend that not dispute
regarding marriage and also respondent No.1 lived along with
in-laws for a period of 5 months in Bangalore and thereafter,
she had joined the husband and stayed in Toronto for some
time. The counsel would contend that wife did not deserted her
husband, but the respondents before MMTC made her to live
separately and to join her parental house. The counsel brought
to notice of this Court averments made in paragraph No.18 of

- 9 -
CRL.P No. 7018 of 2019


C.Misc.No.148/2017, wherein DV Act allegations are made
against each of the respondents therein and when there are
specific domestic violence allegations against the petitioner,
there cannot be any order for quashing.
13. The counsel also would contend that when the
petition was filed under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,
her husband did not appear through Video Conference. Though
contention was taken that tickets were given and handed over,
but those tickets are given just prior to two days i.e., on
15.11.2018, but travel date was fixed on 17.11.2018. Hence,
she could not travel, consequent upon the order passed under
Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petitioner has not
made any effort to take her back in view of directions of the
Court, since she needs Visa also to travel abroad. The counsel
contend that Section 468 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked, since
the same relates to criminal prosecution and in the present
case, relief is sought only under DV Act under Sections 18, 19,
20 and 22. Hence, the contention of learned Senior counsel for
the petitioner that 468 of Cr.P.C. attracts cannot be accepted.
14. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 in support of
her argument relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in

- 10 -
CRL.P No. 7018 of 2019


SHAURABH KUMAR TRIPATHI vs. VIDHI RAWAL delivered
in CRL.A.NO.2668/2025 dated 19.03.2025 and brought to
notice of this Court paragraph Nos.32 and 33, wherein
discussion was made with regard to scope of interference under
Section 482 with the proceedings under DV, Act 2005 and relief
to be sought under the DV Act which is discussed in paragraph
No.34 with regard to the provisions made under Sections 18 to
23. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court the
discussion made by the Apex Court with regard to scope of
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., wherein held that the High Court should
keep in mind the fact that DV Act, 2005 is a welfare legislation,
specially enacted to give justice to those women who suffer
from domestic violence and for preventing acts of domestic
violence and the High Court should not venture to invoke
Section 482 and also brought to notice of this Court discussion
made in paragraph No.39, wherein held that normally
interference under Section 482 is warranted only in the case of
gross illegality or injustice or otherwise there cannot be any
quashing.
15. Having considered the grounds urged in the petition
as well as grounds urged during the course of argument by
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned

- 11 -
CRL.P No. 7018 of 2019


counsel for respondent No.1 and also the principles laid down in
the judgments referred supra by respective counsels, the points
that would arise for consideration of this Court are:
(1) Whether this Court can exercise the power
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the
proceedings initiated under Section 12 of DV
Act as contended by learned Senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner?
(2) What order?
Point No.(1)
16. Having considered the material on record and also
the grounds which have been urged in the petition as well as
during the course of argument, it is not in dispute that
marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized
in the year 2013 and also, no dispute that subsequently, the
wife had stayed along with respondent Nos.2 and 3 till
arrangement was made at Toronto with in-laws. So also, it is
not in dispute that thereafter, she had joined her husband and
she came back in 2016. But, specific allegations are made
against all the respondents in MMTC in the
Crl.Misc.No.148/2017 that she was forced to file a present
petition as well as the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu

- 12 -
CRL.P No. 7018 of 2019


Marriage Act, 1955. It is also not in dispute that petition filed
under Section 9 is also allowed. However, learned Senior
counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that tickets
were arranged, but it is the contention of learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.1-wife that tickets were handed
over only on 15.11.2018 and travel date was fixed on
17.11.2018 and hence, she could not travel and the petitioner
has not made any effort to take her back. But, the Court has to
take note that these are the issues which cannot be considered
in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Learned Senior
counsel appearing for the petitioner also contend that petition
filed under Section 12 of DV Act is barred by limitation and the
said contention also cannot be considered in a petition under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and whether it is barred by limitation is
also a mixed question of fact and law.
17. The other contention of learned Senior counsel for
the petitioner is that there is no specific allegation of domestic
violence having considered the averments of petition. The said
contention that no pleading regarding domestic violence cannot
be accepted, since learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.1-wife brought to notice of this Court specific allegations
made in paragraph No.18 of Crl.Misc.No.148/2017. No doubt,

- 13 -
CRL.P No. 7018 of 2019


this Court quashed the proceedings initiated under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. in Criminal Petition No.200009/2021, wherein this
Court while exercising the powers taken note of Section 2(q) of
DV Act and also the allegations, wherein only omnibus
allegations are made and in the present case, specific
allegations are made against the petitioner. Hence, the said
judgment will not come to the aid of petitioner. So also, the
other judgments which have been relied upon with regard to
the limitation will also not come to the aid of the petitioner,
since this Court has already held that the same is a matter of
trial.
18. However, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.1 brought the notice of this Court scope of Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. in CRL.A.NO.2688/2025 referring the scope of
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., particularly paragraph Nos.33, 34, 35
and so also 39, wherein the Apex Court discussed with regard
to scope of Section 12(1) of DV Act, wherein it is held that
prayer has to be considered under Sections 18 to 23 and it is
also observed that the High Court should be very slow and
circumspect while invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C and there
cannot be a casual exercising of jurisdiction under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. and also made it clear in paragraph No.39 that

- 14 -
CRL.P No. 7018 of 2019


normally interference under Section 482 is warranted only in
the case of gross illegality or injustice or otherwise under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C for challenging the proceedings
emanating from Section 12(1) of DV Act, 2005 is not
maintainable, is not the correct view. But, holds that High Court
can exercise the power under Section 482, if any injustice is
caused and illegality is found. But, the same is not found in the
present case on hand. The scope of 482 of Cr.P.C. is very clear,
when the relief is sought under Section 12 and other provisions
under Sections 18 to 23 and such reliefs to be considered,
having considered the domestic violence. In the case on hand,
whether there exists such domestic violence or not is a matter
of trial.
19. This Court would like to rely upon judgment of High
Court of Madras in ARUL DANIEL AND OTHERS vs.
SUGANYA reported in 2022 SCC ONLINE MAD 5435 ,
wherein the Apex Court in paragraph No.86(a) held that a
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a proceeding
under Section 12 of the D.V. Act is not maintainable. A petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution is maintainable on a
limited ground of patent lack of jurisdiction. The Apex Court
also in paragraph No.87(i) held that “an application under

- 15 -
CRL.P No. 7018 of 2019


Section 12 of the D.V. Act, is not a complaint under Section
2(d) of the Cr.P.C. Consequently, the procedure set out in
Section 190(1)(a) & 200 to 204, Cr.P.C. as regards cases
instituted on a complaint has no application to a proceeding
under the D.V. Act. The Magistrate cannot, therefore, treat an
application under the D.V. Act as though it is a complaint case
under the Cr.P.C.
20. This Court also would like to rely upon order passed
by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MR. OLIVER MENEZES
vs. MRS. SERITA THERESE MATHIAS in CRIMINAL
PETITION NO.356/2019 dated 20.05.2021, wherein at
paragraph No.17, this Court relied upon Division Bench
judgment of Madras High Court in RAJAMANICKAM vs.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU reported in 2015 (3) MWN CRI
379, wherein the Court relied upon paragraph No.41 of the
judgment in P. PATHMANATHAN AND OTHERS vs. MONICA
AND OTHERS reported in 2021 (2) CTC 57 which reads as
follows:
“41 As pointed out by a Division Bench of
this Court in Rajamanickam v State of Tamil Nadu,
2015 (3) MWN Cri 379, Section 482 Cr.P.C.
preserves only the inherent criminal jurisdiction of

- 16 -
CRL.P No. 7018 of 2019


the High Court. Thus, a petition under Section
482, Cr.P.C. would be maintainable only if the
order complained of is passed by a criminal
Court or by a Court in exercise of powers under
the Cr.P.C. An application under Section 12 of the
D.V. Act does not fall in either category, as what
the Court is called upon to do at that stage is to
interdict the exercise of civil jurisdiction by the
Magistrate at the threshold. As indicated supra,
since the Magistrate is exercising only a civil
jurisdiction in granting relief's under Chapter
IV of the Act, it follows that a Magistrate is
not a criminal Court for the purposes of
proceedings under Chapter IV of the Act. It
follows that an application under Section 482,
Crl.P.C. does not lie to quash an application
under Section 12 of the D.V. Act”.
(Emphasis supplied)
21. Hence, the petitioner has not made out any ground
to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the
proceedings as contended by learned Senior counsel appearing
for petitioner. Accordingly, I answer point No.(1) as ‘negative’.
Point No.(2)

22. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:

- 17 -
CRL.P No. 7018 of 2019


ORDER

The criminal petition is dismissed.



Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE



ST