Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Madras)
UDAY UMESH LALIT, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.
Kamatchi – Appellant
Versus
Lakshmi Narayanan – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 627 of 2022, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2514 of 2021
Decided On : 13-04-2022
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Sections 17, 18 and 32 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 468 – Domestic violence – Cognizance of offence – Bar of limitation – Cognizance’ ought to be taken within specified period from commission of offence but complainant should not be put to prejudice, if for reasons beyond control of prosecuting agency or complainant, cognizance was taken after period of limitation – If filing of complaint or initiation of proceedings was within prescribed period from date of commission of an offence, Court would be entitled to take cognizance even after prescribed period was over – If there be any offence committed in terms of provisions of Act, limitation prescribed under Section 468 of Code will apply from date of commission of such offence – By the time application is preferred under Section 12 of Act, there is no offence committed in terms of provisions of Act and as such there would never be a starting point for limitation from date of application under Section 12 of Act – Such starting point for limitation would arise only and only after there is a breach of order passed under Section 12 of Act – High Court wrongly equated filing of application under Section 12 of Act to lodging of a complaint or initiation of prosecution – High Court was in error in observing that application under Section 12 of Act ought to have been filed within a period of one year of alleged acts of domestic violence – View taken by High Court set aside. (Paras 13, 20 and 23)
Facts of the case:
Present proceedings arise out of an application preferred by appellant under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The application was filed seeking appropriate protection in terms of Sections 17 and 18 of the Act and was preferred against the respondent-husband as well as the father-in-law and sister-in-law of appellant.
Findings of Court:
There appears to be a period of almost 10 years after 16.09.2008, when nothing was alleged by the appellant against the husband. But that is a matter which will certainly be considered by the Magistrate after response is received from the husband and the rival contentions are considered. That is an exercise which has to be undertaken by the Magistrate after considering all the factual aspects presented before him, including whether the allegations constitute a continuing wrong.
Result : Appeal allowed.
The legal document discusses the principles related to the limitation period for initiating cognizance of offences, particularly under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and the relevant Act. The key points are as follows:
The period within which cognizance must be taken is generally prescribed to ensure timely proceedings, but it should not prejudice the complainant or prosecuting agency if delays occur due to reasons beyond their control (!) (!) .
The initiation of proceedings or filing of a complaint within the prescribed limitation period is crucial. If these actions are timely, the court can take cognizance even after the limitation period has expired, provided the delay was caused by circumstances beyond the control of the complainant or prosecution (!) (!) .
The starting point for the limitation period, especially under the relevant Act, is the date of the commission of the offence, not the date when an application under the Act is filed or when the breach of an order occurs (!) (!) .
The interpretation of "cognizance" is significant; it is primarily the act of the court applying its mind to the case, which may be different from the act of filing a complaint or initiating proceedings. The limitation period is linked more closely to the date of filing or institution rather than the date of cognizance (!) (!) .
In cases where proceedings are initiated within the limitation period but cognizance is taken after the period, the court may still proceed if the complaint or proceedings were filed timely, emphasizing the importance of the filing date over the date of cognizance (!) (!) .
The procedural provisions under the Act, especially regarding applications under Section 12, are distinct from the procedures under the Criminal Procedure Code. An application under Section 12 is not equivalent to lodging a complaint, and the limitation rules applicable to complaints do not directly apply to such applications (!) (!) .
The concept of continuing offence is relevant in some contexts, where offences or acts of violence or breach are ongoing, and the limitation period may be extended accordingly. However, the specific circumstances and the nature of the offence determine whether the limitation period applies or is extended (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that procedural laws, including limitation statutes, should be interpreted in a manner that promotes justice and fairness, avoiding undue prejudice to diligent complainants or prosecutors due to delays beyond their control (!) .
In summary, the key takeaway is that the limitation period for initiating criminal proceedings is anchored to the date of the complaint or institution of prosecution, not solely the date of cognizance. Exceptions exist where delays are caused by circumstances beyond the control of the complainant or prosecution, allowing proceedings to be initiated beyond the limitation period. Additionally, procedural distinctions under the relevant Act influence how limitation principles are applied.
JUDGMENT :
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated 16.03.2020 passed by the High Court1 [High Court of Judicature at Madras] in Crl. O.P. No. 28924 of 2018.
3. The present proceedings arise out of an application preferred by the appellant under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) which was numbered as D.V.C. No. 21 of 2018 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, Chennai. The application was filed seeking appropriate protection in terms of Sections 17 and 18 of the Act and was preferred against the respondent-husband as well as the father-in-law and sister-in-law of the appellant. The Protection Officer vide his Domestic Inspection Report dated 21.08.2018 tabulated the incidents of domestic violence as under:
| S. No. | Date, Place and Time of violence | Persons who caused domestic violence | Types of violence | Remarks |
| Physical violence | ||||
| 1. | 25.08.2007 Husband’s Home | Father-in-law Mother-in-law Sister-in-law | They came to our house for marriage invitation and demanded jewels. They also insulted my father saying normally all are giving 20 severing jewels to auto driver. | |
| 2. | 08.09.2007 | Father-in-law Sister-in-law | My father-in-law and sister-in-law stated that my husband got bride from rich family but don’t know what he saw in me and choose me. | |
| 3. | 09.09.2007 | Sister-in-law Rajeshwari | On that day my husband unnecessarily fought with me. She disrespectfully spoke about me and my family members as what dowry was given by your family, what jewel you brought and came, like a beggar family. | |
| 4. | 14.09.2007 Husband House | Father-in-law Sister-in-law | All were fighting with my Husband in front of me and told him not to take me to London. They spoke about me in disrespectful manner. | |
| 5. | 15.09.2007 | Father-in-law Sister-in-law | Tortured me stating that you should not go London along with your husband and they disconnected electricity connection in my room. | |
| 6. | 19.09.2007 | Father-in-law Mother-in-law Sister-in-law | All person jointly spoke disrespectfully with me about my parents that they have not given car and other household things. | |
| 7. | 20.01.2008 | Husband | I was pregnant at that time, based on the instigation of them, my husband compelled me to abort the cyst. But I did not accept, so he brought me to India from London, thereafter he left me and went to London. | |
| 8. | 16.09.2008 | Father-in-law Mother-in-law Sister-in-law | They did not consider me as a girl, who had undergone surgery, and they entered my room and tried to attack me stating that it was not proper marriage, jewel and household thing and this is not our heir. | |
| 9. | 20.04.2018 | Sister-in-law Rajeshwary | When I went to my husband house with the High Court order of restitution, my sister-in-law Rajeshwary obstructed me from entering the house and she pushed me and my child out of the house and told me to die somewhere. | |
| (II) SEXUAL VIOLENCE | ||||
| Please tick mark the column applicable. | ||||
(II) SEXUAL VIOLENCE
Please tick mark the column applicable.
“My name Kamakshi. Marriage solemnized in between me and my husband on 07.09.2007. The dowry, which was given to my marriage, 60 sovereign gold, 4½ kg silver, Rs. 50,000/- and other household things placed at my Husband’s House. My parents spent Rs. 15 lakhs for marriage. Before the marriage, my husband family members came to our home for give invitation and gave mental stress and stated that jewel and dowry are not enough. My father borrowed loa
General and omnibus allegations against in-laws without specific instances do not constitute domestic violence, justifying quashing of proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence....
Limitations under Section 468 of the CrPC do not apply until there is a breach of an order issued under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
The court established that proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are civil in nature and distinct from criminal proceedings, thus not subject to quashing under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
(1) Cognizance of offence(s) – Bar of limitation – Date of filing complaint or date on which criminal proceedings are initiated is relevant date for the purpose of counting limitation.(2) Administrat....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
