- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.
(2.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Hari Krishna with prayer to quash the further proceedings of Case No. 450 of 2014 (Smt. Anushkah @ Vineeta Tiwari Vs. Pankaj Mishra @ Pankaj Kumar Mishra) under Section 12 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah as well as order dated 29.05.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Etah.
(3.) Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that marriage of the son of the applicant was solemnized with the opposite party no. 2 on 24.02.2011. Looking to strange behaviour of the opposite party no. 2 with the applicant, the opposite party no. 2 and her husband was dis-possessed from the house on 24.03.2014, a publication was also made in the news paper on 26.03.2014. A proceeding under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act was started by the opposite party no. 2 against her husband Pankaj Mishra and other family members including the applicant. The court concerned allowed the application for interim maintenance granting Rs. 4,000/ per month directing the applicant to permit the opposite party no. 2 for residing in house No. 6/3G/1A/5 Shastri Nagar Khandari, Police Station Hari Parwat, District Agra. An appeal was filed. The appellate court also rejected the appeal affirming the order dated 29.05.2015 passed by the concerned Magistrate. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is also that Pankaj Mishra the husband of the opposite party no. 2 is residing in the rental house at Shahjahanpur as is clear from the annexure No. 7 and the applicant has ousted Pankaj Mishra from the house beloning to the applicant, therefore, order passed by the concerned Magistrate on 29.05.2015 and affirming by the appellate Court on 17.10.2014 is illegal. No such order could be passed. Prayer has also been made that entire proceeding of the complaint Case no. 450 of 2014 be quashed setting aside the order passed by the lower appellate court and concerned Magistrate. It was further argued that no recovery proceeding could also be started on the basis of order passed by the concerned Magistrate against the applicant. Protection order passed in favour of the opposite party no. 2 by way of interim order to reside in the shared house could also not be executed against the applicant.;