Om Parkash, J. - (1.) The present application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the complaint case no. 1834 of 2015 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (in short 'the Act'), P.S. Daraganj, District Allahabad including the notices served to the applicants pending before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad. Further prayer has been made to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case.
(2.) Heard Mr. R.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants as well as the learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the entire record.
(3.) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that complaint was filed on the basis of false facts and the same is time barred but the concerned Magistrate without considering this fact illegally took the cognizance thereon. Referring to the provisions of Section 28 of the Act, it was also submitted that limitation for initiating proceeding under Section 12 of the Act is of only one year. It was next submitted that the complaint is mala fide as the same is in continuation of the earlier complaint filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. No cause of action arose to file the present complaint. Further, female members have also been arraigned as respondent which cannot be done under the Act. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicants referred to the definition of 'respondent' defined under Section 2(q) of the Act. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab and another, (2011) 12 SCC 588 , two decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ajay Kant v. Alka Sharma, 2007 LawSuit(MP) 1415 and in the case of Tehmina Qureshi v. Shazia Qureshi, 2009 Lawsuit (MP) 341 , and a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Menakuru Renuka v. Menakuru Mohan Reddy, 2008 LawSuit(AP) 832 , a decision of Uttarakhand High Court in Kanti Devi and another v. State of Uttarakhand and another, 2014 LawSuit (Utt) 30 , a decision of Delhi High Court in Dhupender Singh Mehra and another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2010 LawSuit (Del) 3615 , It was next contended that the complaint was not filed on proper proforma. Lastly it was submitted that by developing the facts mentioned in the earlier complaint, the present complaint has been filed without disclosing the date of cause of action.;