Date of judgement:
10th December 2021
Bench:
Justice H.P.Sandesh
Parties:
Appellant – Mareppa
Respondent – Pushpanjali
Subject
A petition wasfiled under Section 482 of Cr.P.C by the petitioners who were charged under the DV Act.The petition was admitted and the proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.
Legal Provisions
- Section 12 of DV Act- Application to magistrate
- Section 18(A)(f) of DV Act- Orders for protection
- Section 19(F) of DV Act- Residence orders
- Section 22 of DV Act- Orders for compensation
- Section 482 of Cr.P.C- Inherent powers of High Court
Overview
- The petitions filed a plea to quash the order passed by Additional Civil Judge on 21/11/2020, Kalaburagi, where the petitioners were held liable under Sections 12, 18(A)(f), 19(F), 22 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005(DV Act). The petition was filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C.
- The complaint was filed by the respondent under the DV Act against her husband and petitioners, for protection from domestic violence and ordering the petitioners to stay away from the respondent and her family members. The respondent also pleaded for compensation for causing emotional distress and for paying the rent of the house i.e. Rs 10,000/-. Resultantly, a notice was issued by the Trial Court against the petitioners and her husband.
- The main contention from the side of the petitioners was that they did not share a common shelter or a mess. Furthermore,the petitioners pleaded that upon reading the complaint,nothing was found against the husband of the complainant and hence the complaint was not maintainable under section 2 of DV Act.
- Furthermore, the petitioners argued that there was an error by the learned Magistrate in issuing summons. All the petitioners were government servants and resided in different locations. The allegation of ill-treatment and influence on husband for additional dowry was a false and mala fide complaint to drag the petitioners to the Court of Law.
- While issuing, summons under Section 61 of Cr.P.C, the Magistrate did not consider that the present case was a dispute between the husband and wife(complainant) for which the complainant and her husband had already filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
- Thus, the petitioners pleaded that the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C was maintainable and the petition filed before the Trial Court was an abuse of process. The complaint was not maintainable as the petitioners were charged for domestic violence but they did not reside in the same home with the complainant.
- The counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of Prakash and Ord vs Sarita, where the Court had discussed Sections 12, 2(a), 2(f) and 2(q) of DV Act and had entertained the petition, that pleaded for quashing of proceedings, under section 482 ofCr.P.C
- The respondent, on the other hand, contended that under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the issuance of notice against the petitioner could not be challenged. The protection was being sought from domestic violence.
- Furthermore, the respondents pleaded that it could not be argued that the complaint was not viable against the petitioners because Section 2(q) of DV Act is broad in nature and it expressly states that the complainant might submit a complaint against a relative of the petitioner's husband. Hence, the petition was maintainable.
- Section 3 of the DV Act was brought to notice which talks about the meaning of domestic violence.
- The counsel relied upon the judgment of Maya Devi v. State of N.C.T. for stating that the present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C was not maintainable as per Article 277 of the Constitution of India.
- The counsel further relied upon the judgment of Rakesh Sachdev v. State of Kharkhand, stating that a report may be required only before passing a final order and not before issuing the notice. The counsel also relied on the definitions under Section 2(f) (talks about persons who can be impleaded as respondents who have committed domestic violence as per section 3) and Section 2(q)(talks about who can be a male respondent).
Issues
- Whether the petition was maintainable under section 482 of Cr.P.C or whether it invoked the appellate jurisdiction under Section 29 of the DV Act?
- Whether the Trial Court had made an error for issuance of notice against the petitioners who were not sharing a common kitchen with the complainant?
Judgment Analysis
- Referring to the three judgments i.e., Urmila Devi v. Yudhvir Singh, Mohit Sonu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, the Court held that even if there is an alternative remedy of revision, the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is maintainable. The ability to quash an FIR, an inquiry, or any criminal proceedings ongoing before any Court subordinate to it is included under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. It has a fairly broad definition of such powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, which can be exercised to accomplish the goals of justice, to avoid abuse of any Court's process, and to issue necessary directions to give effect to any Court order based on the facts of each case.
- The petition under section 482 Cr.P.C was thus allowed by the Court and the proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.
Conclusion
- It was held by the bench thatthe petition was maintainable under section 482 of Cr.P.C and need not invoke section 29 of DV Act.The petitioners were not living with the complainant, hence the issue of the relief sought for both a protective order and monetary benefit did not arise in the instant case.
Neither did they share any joint family property nor did they live with the respondent and her spouse. Resultantly, the petitioners' counsel's argument that the Court must consider the remedies sought in the petition had merit.
