Order 3

Order Details: Order
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (FIRST CLASS)
10TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI
C.C.No. 336/DV/2018
ORDER BELOW APPLICATION EXH. 26
The respondent No.4 has sought the relief of dropping of
proceedings against her.
2. The application is replied at Exh.32 and rejoinder is filed at
Exh.38. The respondent No.4 along-with respondent No.2 and 3 has filed
several photographs on record. The respondent No.4 has filed written
submissions at Exh.60 in support of her petition.
3. It is contended by respondent No.4 that she happens to be the
sister-in-law (husband’s sister) of the petitioner. It is further contended that
all the allegations made against her are vague and unclear. It is also
contended that the terms like mental and physical torture used against her is
without any documentary proof. It is further contended that she has not
anyway participated or witnessed the domestic violence alleged by the
applicant. In absence of specific details including dates, nature of injuries or
detail of physical or mental abuse on the part of respondent No.4, no prima
facie case is made out against her.
4. The petitioner through her reply pointed point No.4 (e) of her
petition and also relied upon the printout of chats between her and
respondent No.4 which shows that respondent No.4 was aware of the
domestic abuse done to the applicant and that respondent No.1 was drug
addict. According to her, respondent No.4 ought to have helped her but, she
-- 1 of 4 --
2
watched the abuse done to her.
5. By virtue of rejoinder filed by respondent No.4, it is mentioned
that no allegations have been put against respondent No.4 and no role has
been attributed to her in alleged seen of domestic violence and not did she
witnessed any violence done to her. It is mentioned that the allegation of
being cheated into marrying a drug addict does not anyway attract any
liability towards her as the marriage between petitioner and respondent No.1
was love marriage. She also claimed that the petitioner made a informed
choice of marrying respondent No.1 and concocted stories of his drug
addiction solely to play a victim card and extract wealth from their family.
She further states that the petitioner was friend to her and she betrayed her
by making false allegations. She has also mentioned that applicant’s stand is
self contradictory as on one hand she claimed to be friend to her and a person
of confidence to her that she shared her issues with her while, on the other
hand she claimed that the respondent No.4 ensured that petitioner bears all
the mental and physical torture. It is also mentioned that the petitioner stayed
in the matrimonial home for not more than 40 days and made false
allegations and bold accusations.
6. Heard both sides. The Ld. Advocate for respondents has relied
upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and
Ladakh at Shrinagar in case of Riyaz Ahmad Lone and Others V/s. Naziya
Hasan and Another. Perused the record. Following points for determination
arose from my consideration. I have recorded to my findings to them for the
reasons mentioned therein.
-- 2 of 4 --
3
Sr.
No
Points for the Determination Findings
1 Whether applicant is entitled for dropping
of proceedings against her ?
….In the Affirmative
2 What order ? …. Allowed
REASONS
AS TO POINT NO. 1
7. The relationship between the parties is not at dispute. I have
gone through the petition as well as chats referred by the parties.
8. Indeed following material in point No. 4(e) of the petition is the
only allegation made by the petitioner against respondent No.4.
“…. Respondents 3 and 4 who were witnessing al the
abuse duly ensured that the Applicant does not get
any opportunity to even meet her parents personally
and instead they ensured that the Applicant is made to
bear all the mental and physical torture meted out to
her by them jointly and severally”.
9. Prima facie neither petition nor the chats disclosed any substance
amounting to domestic abuse as defined in Section 3 of the PWDV Act, 2005.
The allegation that the respondent No.4 witnessed domestic abuse done to
the applicant is not sufficient to prima facie hold that the respondent No.4
has caused any sort of domestic abuse to the petitioner. Even the facts stated
in the petition together with the printouts of whatsapp chats does not make
out prima facie case of emotional abuse on the part of respondent No.4. Thus,
for these reasons, I am convinced that there is no prima facie case of domestic
-- 3 of 4 --
4
violence made out against respondent No.4. Thus, following order :
ORDER
1. Application is allowed.
2. The proceedings in C.C.No. 336/DV/2018 against respondent No.4
Sasha Vinod Sachdev are hereby dropped.
Sd/-
(S.G. Agrawal)
Place : Mumbai. Judicial Magistrate (F.C.)
Dated : 31/07/2026 10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 4 of 4 --